orchidalan Loc: Arroyo Grande, CA

I have a question that many of you might be able to answer. I have a Canon 18-200 lens as a walk around lens for my 77D. I was looking at a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and was wondering if it along with my Canon 24-70L f/2.8 II lens will be a lot better (sharper) than the 18-200 zoom. Will they give me noticeably sharper pictures or on my crop sensor camera not be that much better. I know the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM would be noticeably better in low light situations just because of the f/2.8 light opening. I know it is rated as an awesome lens but will it be that much better for a person just taking pictures for himself and family and not usually blowing up those pictures for framing.
Thanks for the help and insight.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hey orchidalan, both the lenses mentioned are Canon's sharpest zoom lenses, representing the apex of Canon's entire catalog of EF lenses, zooms and primes. They're also $1700 investments, per lens, new. If you have the money for one or both, they are built to last a life-time of everyday, heavy-duty, professional use. They're also large and heavy, both from the rugged build and also the large front element being a heavy piece of glass.

However, they might not be your best choice, particularly for your cropped sensor where you'd lose the wide angle your 18-200 provides for general walkaround use. Your 77D is a newer model with much better higher ISO performance than cameras of even the recent past. Your EF-S 18-200mm is a well regarded lens. Are you maximizing the performance of this lens combined with your EOS 77D? You might find a constant aperture f/4 lens is cheaper, smaller and just a useful. An even faster prime could be a better choice for especially low-light situations and just as sharp as these two reference zooms at the focal length of the prime. You might also review your images and the typical focal lengths you're using and review available primes at your typical focal length, see if there is a fast prime at that length.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

Yes, most definitely.



If you're not going to take advantage of the higher quality, ie printing, then save your $$ and settle with "it's good enough for the girls/guys I go out with"

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Hi,
I have a Canon 5D MIII and 7D MII and both II versions of the f/2.8 lenses you mentioned. They are incredible lenses. They have covered 95% of my photography in the past 4+ years. Prior to that I had the I version of both lenses. They will make a significant difference difference in IQ.
Mark

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I have never used the 18-200 lens so I can't give you a comparison. I do have both the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II and the EF 100-400 L II. If you are comfortable with the price of the 70-200 then I suggest you take a good look at the 100-400. It is a superb lens that I find far more uses for then my 70-200. The only time I prefer the 70-200 is for indoor sports where it has an advantage over the 100-400 due to it's low light capability. There is little difference in image quality or auto focus speed between the two but the 100-400 is slightly bigger and heavier.
The current version of the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS is also a superb lens for considerably less money but I don't know how it compares to the 18-200. I assume it is considerably better but I don't know if that would warrant the price in your case.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I’m a NIKON guy but have both a NIKKOR 18-200 and an 80-200 2.8

The 18-200 is my walk around and museum lens.

The 80-200 2.8 is my sports lens and used seldom.

Also have a 300/4 and a 400/5.6 which I see for air shows and wildlife.

If it’s affordable, you want it and are comfortable with it likely being a shelf queen most of the time go for it.

Other than the weight and cost, 2.8 glass opens a whole new world of *POP* to photography when used.

For smaller apertures the advantages tend to go away and only the downer remains:

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

For just taking pictures for himself and family and not usually blowing up those pictures I'm sure the 18-200 is more than adequate, even if not compaerable to the L lenses. Personally, I have a Sigma 18-300 and it is on the camera most of the time. I get what is really sharp pictures most of the time. I sometimes crop severely.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If ultimate sharpness is your goal (along with considerably lighter weight and lower cost), don’t discount a selection of primes. Not as versatile (you’ll need to change lenses periodically), but they are substantially faster and sharper. For the price of a 24-70 f2.8L or a 70-200 f2.8L MKII, you can buy a 24 f2.8 ($500) or 35 f2 ($500), an 85 f1.8 ($400) and a 135 f2L ($800) and maybe throw in a 50 f1.4. ($300). And for another ~$200 for a used 1.4x mkII Canon extender for the 135 f2L, you can add the capabilities of a 190mm f2.8 (which is still sharper than the zoom and half the weight). Just an alternate approach to consider.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

With any of the lenses you will need to consider the reduced angle of view with your crop sensor body. There are several good options especially if you have and are willing to spend the money. I would think that the 2.8 zooms might hold their value better than the primes over time if that is any consideration. The zooms would not disappoint as I have and use both.

If you shoot or will consider shooting RAW I will suggest you spend $100 on a Xrite ColorChecker Passport. That is the best $100 I ever spent on photography. You can look at videos about it on YouTube.

khorinek

when I had the 7D Mark I, I used the 18-200 lens. After switching to full frame and upgrading my lenses to the "L" quality lenses I realized the 18-200 wasn't so great after all. I would make the switch, you won't regret it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, the L lenses are a LOT better ! - but save yourself some $$$ and get the 70-200 f4L IS II instead - it is the sharpest/best focusing !

..

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The simple answer is "yes".... those two L-series lenses would give you noticeably sharper, less distorted, more richly colored images with less chromatic aberration.

However, those lenses are also big, heavy and expensive.

It IS NOT the f/2.8 aperture which makes those lenses "better" in the above ways. f/2.8 gives you potential for stronger background blur effects and the ability to shoot and stop action in lower light conditions.

You might want to instead consider the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM II (or the original). These are also extremely capable, high quality L-series lenses that are about 1/3 smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 versions, plus are about 1/3 lower cost. Also, the f/4 version of the 24-70mm has Image Stabilization... the f/2.8 version doesn't (it helps steady shots at slower shutter speeds, but IS can't help freeze subject movement, you still need a faster shutter speed for that). Also, the EF 24-70mm f/4L is amazingly close focusing. It's able to do .70X magnification on it's own, nearly 3/4 life size. That's 2X to 3X higher magnification than the f/2.8 lenses can do.

Another alternative you should consider if you really want an f/2.8 zoom in your camera bag, get the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM instead. It's not as close focusing as the 24-70mm f/4, but it has what some people consider a "better" range of focal lengths for a crop sensor camera such as the 77D. It's not an L-series (by definition, no EF-S lens can be), but it's got image quality the equal of or better than many L-series. And it's got both f/2.8 and Image Stabilization.

I have an older version of both 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. I use the 70-200mm so much I got a 70-200mm f/4L IS USM as a "backup". But I find I actually use the f/4 lens more often now, since it's so much lighter and more compact, yet has equally good image quality in all respects except for it's ability to blur down backgrounds.

Still, even and f/4 lens can render pretty strong background blur and shallow depth of field effects when used close to subjects:

70-200mm f/4...


I haven't got the 24-70mm f/4... yet. But probably will when I get my next full frame camera.

By the way... if looking for even stronger background blur and shallow depth of field effects, prime lenses (rather than zooms) can be a better way to achieve that. For one, primes can have one to two stops larger aperture than an f/2.8 zoom, yet still be quite reasonably sized and affordable, compared to the "fast" zoom. For example, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM or EF 85mm f/1.8 lenses are far smaller, lighter and have potential for much stronger background blur than a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 zoom. The Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM, 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2L are no slouches, either.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Lotsa responses, you haven't come back yet.

We always tend to ask, "What problem are you trying to overcome?"

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Yes, the 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the money with fast focusing and solid sharpness. I have also used this lens for portraits, indoor sports and drag racing shooting.

orchidalan Loc: Arroyo Grande, CA

Thanks to all of your responses. Great input. The Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM Lens will definitely be looked at. Thank you