Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS III Review | Better than Nikon, Sony, Sigma & Tamron Versions


NEW FroPack 1 Lightroom Presets (40% off)

This is a review of the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS version III. When this lens was announced I thought it didn’t make much sense as the version II is incredible. Once I used the new lens, I saw why it was released, it really is one of the best lenses i’ve ever used.

Order the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS III at Adorama

Download Sample RAW Files

Download MyGearVault

Get a FREE Guide To Capturing Motion In Low Light Situations (look for the orange box)


Gear I USE
I SHOOT RAW Camera Bag
Nikon D5
Nikon D850
The Microphone I use for Vlogging
Nikon 70-200 2.8
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR
Nikon 14-24 2.8
Nikon 105 F1.4
Sony a7 III
My Rolling Bag Of Choice For Flying

Follow me

USE CODE FRO at to get your 14 day FREE Trial.

Please help us continue to make FREE content
by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto
Educational guides. To check out previews of
each guide click here.


Xem thêm bài viết khác:


  1. So, remove the mount, eh? I hope you're not one of those folks that carry your camera by the body with this lens on!
    Covering sports, both the ring and the carry case are essential.
    One of the primary reasons for leaving the tripod ring mounted for me is convenience when swapping lenses. Since that foot's on the bottom, you don't need to look at what you're doing; muscle memory.

  2. About pricing I agree with you. Nikon lenses are so expensive personally I started with Nikon camera and when I moved to profession I was bargaining whether to get a nikon full frame camera or Canon full frame camera. I checked reviews from youtube and checked prices I realized Nikon isn’t pocket friendly and also thought of struggling in future when it comes to gear upgrades for Nikon And I went for Canon body I’d advice fo Canon instead of Nikon

  3. You mention that the lens "still holds up well even at low ISO (8000)"… But what would ISO change how the lens performs? They're independent of eachother. Maybe you mean in low light situations, but I'm confused as to how a lens would work differently based on the amount of light… Maybe you'd seen less color or something? Is there any proof of that being a real 'thing'? Hard to explain what I'm getting at here.

  4. Hi. I have a questions about why mk3 is better then Sony, except obvious – price? There is no canon mirrorless superspeed canon camera yet, and I don't want to switch yet, but I have the chance to buy 70-200 sony in very good price – is there any sense to me, or you in that movement if I am not pro. Ok I am thinking that I answered for second question already.

  5. If i have found one of these brand new for £1300 ($1600), is it worth getting instead of the older first edition for (£800) brand new?

  6. Bro, I saw this lens on sale ($300 off) on Best Buy and I bought it!!! I’m going to Mammoth, California, this weekend and I’m excited to use it!!!!(:

  7. Are there markings on the 2.8/ 70-200 L that indicate which version it is?….I have v1 and looking to upgrade.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here