I did comparisons with my mk 1 b4 I sold it and they were very close. The mk 2 is slightly sharper, but in my experience it was not Earth shattering. Each persons experience is different though and there is variences in copies of lenses also. It's good the OP got a nice, sharp copy of the new one.
They do look great Will, very impressive! I haven't had much chance to test out my new 70-200 II on my 5D MkII, but what I've tested so far certainly don't look that sharp. After seeing your photos, I think I may do some further testing tomorrow. On the other hand, my new 135 f/2 seems to be extremely sharp (and $100 cheaper than I paid for it just a few weeks ago)
I found exactly the same with my new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I had the older IS version, and was never really happy with it, so got the newer version. The difference is night and day. Way sharper and much more reliable. Pairs up beautifully with the 1D mk IV
(By the way, nice hockey shots - I shoot hockey here in the UK)
I also had the version 1, and was hard-pressed to use it at f2.8 without lots of boost in sharpness/contast for inside sports. The world changed for me last year, when I sold my original when the frenzy was on (for 80.00 more than I paid for it), and picked the new one up as part of the Canon 7D/Lens double rebates going on. You will be satisfied!
I have the 70-200 Mk I and the Mk II. My Mk II is significantly sharper than my Mk I, both with and without the 1.4 Mk II teleconverter.
I also have a 300 f/4.0 IS that was always one of my favorite lenses and which is very sharp. The 70-200 Mk II is so sharp even with the 1.4 Mk II teleconverter that I may use that more than the 300 f/4.0.
The IS performance is noticeably better on the Mk II also.
The new TC 1.4III is my next purchase. So I take it you'd recommend it, Jimbo? I expect it to work good with the 70-200 but I NEED the TC to work well with my 400 2.8 IS most of all.
Again, there are variances to the 70-200. My current copy is very sharp wide-open. I am not convinced the MKII is worth $600 more than my copy of the MKI. I will just keep an eye out, somebody will sell one for a big discount, and I can then pick one up.
TS, I thought the MkI I was using was very sharp too until I did a side by side comparison....I'm totally fine paying the extra money. It's worth every penny and if you ever get a chance to do the same thing you'll see the difference too.
I can't wait to shoot NBA on Monday night, I'm not even worried about not having a 300 for down court. With the extreme cropping ability of the Mark IV and the resolving power of this lens, it should be fantastic!
Pixel1970 wrote:
TS, I thought the MkI I was using was very sharp too until I did a side by side comparison....I'm totally fine paying the extra money. It's worth every penny and if you ever get a chance to do the same thing you'll see the difference too.
I can't wait to shoot NBA on Monday night, I'm not even worried about not having a 300 for down court. With the extreme cropping ability of the Mark IV and the resolving power of this lens, it should be fantastic!
Same with me. I looked at a $20 bill - my favorite target. It was significantly sharper with the Mk II.
What are people using for a QR tripod ring foot plate that fits an Arca type mount? I have an extra 658 plate for the Giottos 3300 ballhead, but this plate seems a bit too long for the tripod ring foot.
If I were to do it again I would buy the Wimberley P20, as at 98 mm hit s slightly longer and would be easier to get a balance with the various lens / camera combinations I use.
Either of these should work fine if your Giottos uses the screw clamp, but if it uses the lever clamp the RRS and Wimberley feet most likely won't fit the way you would like (they are too wide).
JimboCin wrote:
I use the RRS L84. It is 91 mm long.
If I were to do it again I would buy the Wimberley P20, as at 98 mm hit s slightly longer and would be easier to get a balance with the various lens / camera combinations I use.
Either of these should work fine if your Giottos uses the screw clamp, but if it uses the lever clamp the RRS and Wimberley feet most likely won't fit the way you would like (they are too wide).
Thanks Jimbo. Yes, my Giottos is a screw clamp. The extra 648 plate I have is 90mm I believe, but I thought it would be too long for the tripod collar foot. Maybe I'll have to look closer...
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not sure about best, but it is excellent for a zoom. The 70-200/2.8 VR II is really nice on the D7000, but I don't have a high-res FX body to stress it with. The 70-200/2.8 IS II is really nice on the 1Ds III and I think it will handle 32+ MP well too.
EBH
You mean the 70-135mm VR II, or maybe the 70-170mm VRii, or you might be right- the 70-200mm VR ii (only far away!)? That lens is a joke at 200mm and mfd or even close distance not far from mfd. It should only be compared to the canon at non-portrait distances.
Gregg: It does hang over the end of the foot. I don't see any problem with that. It means that a wider chance of lens/camera combinations with their varied center of gravities san be balanced.
