Unfortunately 200mm (320mm in our case) isn't enough in some

This was my second copy of this lens, my first was returned due to poor 200mm performance and IS grinding noises

I had the 70-200mm just like this until the IS died.

It wasn't long before I discovered that the 70-200mm was my most used lens and I missed having one in my

70-200mm is very useful for a range of shots indoors and out.

I had the 70-200mm just like this until the IS died.

Get yourself a good macro lens like either of the Canon 100mm macros, or my current favorite, the excellent Tamron

But indoors, in a dimly lit room, at f/2.8 and ISO 100, getting shutter speeds of 1/6th to 1/8th of a second, and 200 mm, I was getting motion blur that was faint, but noticeable.

A B+W UV Haze Filter (77mm) is absolutely necessary to protect the lens element and please do not settle for a UV filter of lesser quality

Out of the ten lenses I have, this 70-200mm is my absolute favorite.

For the past few years I've used Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L non image stabilized lens

Update on 12/9/2013:After renting the 24-70mm mark II lens, I found a remarkable difference from the Canon 24-70mm

The 70-200mm is fantastic for so many applications

135mm is sharper, but the auto-focus, color, and contrast are pretty much the same as this lens, which is saying a lot

It's worth noting that it's sharpest at focul lengths near 135mm so between (120mm-160mm)

On a crop sensor body, this lens is an awesome 112-320mm equivalent, all at f/2.8

well maybe a nice L 50mm)

Now that the price has come down, about $130 from the original price, that should pay for a good B+W 77mm UVA (Ultra Violet

I'd used my 50mm 1.4 as my portrait lens (also extremely good) but this one is now my GO TO lens for every situation other than wide shots

The effective maximum focal drops as low as 135mm