p.4 #2 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Richard Nye wrote:
Don't sell the 135 yet. It's got a HUGE benefit over the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in size and weight (not to mention one stop).
Hi Richard,
You're right. However, I have a question for you: would you value those benefits so much that you would keep it even if you could sell it for 70% of its new value?
I really want a 35L and if I sell my 135L for 700, and order a 35L for 1299 (all figures are euros), I even get a 320EX for free.
p.4 #3 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
The 2.8 non-IS is a very good lens, but from what I have seen of the mkII images
on the web, the mkII IS does better in backlighted and flare-prone conditions. It
is probably noticeably sharper too, but really the 2.8 non-IS is quite good already,
but the difference between wide open and f/4 is noticeable. If I needed IS and used
this zoom range a lot I would not hesitate to go for the mkII IS.
If you are constrained on funds, the 2.8 non-IS is very good value, especially
refurbished or used.
p.4 #4 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Thanks again everyone. I may be using the lens tonight. (Don't have it in my hands just yet.) I would like to ask though, since it was brought up here in this thread... on a tripod, IS on or off?
p.4 #5 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Sharona wrote:
Thanks again everyone. I may be using the lens tonight. (Don't have it in my hands just yet.) I would like to ask though, since it was brought up here in this thread... on a tripod, IS on or off?
Thanks again for the insight!
You can keep it ON when the camera/lens is on a tripod.
p.4 #6 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Just got the lens. Odd question, but it is not really white, but rather tan or beige looking. Do I have the right lens? Everything else seem to be in order, warranty cards, etc...
p.4 #8 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I have the 100-400, and I guess it's not pure white either! In the photos this lens looks whiter, and for the record I don't care what color it is, but it needs to be the "right" lens if you know what I mean.....
p.4 #13 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
teebat wrote:
I own both. The II is sharper and focuses better wide open, but after F5.6 there is not much difference IMO. The new hood is nice.
The biggest leap forward is in the f/2,8-f/4 range. Sharp wide open. Even @200mm.
p.4 #14 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Hi Sharon,
Lots of nice things to photograph inside Interiors, kids, parties, studio's are mostly indoors too. Once accustomed, take it outside.
You're not thinking about sending it back, are you?
I've used both extensively and the new version is scary ridiculous. Super good. But I've NEVER seen such ridiculously good results with a zoom + teleconverter (I never used it with one). Wowza. I'm impressed.
p.4 #16 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
rabbitmountain wrote:
Hi Sharon,
Lots of nice things to photograph inside Interiors, kids, parties, studio's are mostly indoors too. Once accustomed, take it outside.
You're not thinking about sending it back, are you?
Oh no! I'm actually working at the moment, so I'll try to post something tomorrow!
p.4 #17 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Put it this way, the mk2 is so much better in fact, that I'm selling my 300 f/4 and 70-200 2.8IS mk1 to buy the mk2.
Yeah, I lose the ability to have the prime's ligthweight blah blah blah, but I'd rather be able to stick a 1.4 on my 70-200 and have up to 280 and almost as sharp.
p.4 #19 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Sharona wrote:
I'm very excited to get this outside and see what I can do with it.
...and we, or I for one, are very excited to see what you can do with it
In the photos this lens looks whiter, and for the record I don't care what color it is, but it needs to be the "right" lens if you know what I mean..... 
