Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II
  
 
JayCeePhotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


Can someone show me the image quality difference between the two ?

Or can someone try to sway me to purchase one ?



Mar 01, 2014 at 11:13 PM
James Cripps
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


The Version II image quality is profoundly better. What you have undoubtedly heard/read is true.


Mar 01, 2014 at 11:50 PM
Jeffrey
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


Version 1 is a very fine lens. Version 2 may be a bit better but you may not notice the difference. Perhaps a bit faster IS and autofocus. Both are excellent and you should certainly own one.


Mar 01, 2014 at 11:51 PM
pjbuehner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


The difference between my copy of the Version 1 to my copy of the Version II is significant and definitely worth the upgrade. If you happen to have a great copy of the version I, you may be all set as many continue to rave about it. I was never totally happy with mine. If you are happy with yours, why bother.
Best of luck.



Mar 02, 2014 at 12:00 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


I'd love to see if the difference in IQ makes it out into the prints. We many times get hung up in looking at pixel level differences, but in reality, would anyone notice a difference in the finished product?


Mar 02, 2014 at 12:55 AM
Shutterbug2006
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


I'm happy with the results I get with my version 1, but I haven't had the opportunity to try out a II.

It would have to be a perceptual IQ improvement to convince me to burn more money. Just a better IS wouldn't do it for me.



Mar 02, 2014 at 01:15 AM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


It's probably going to depend on the size of the prints, shooting distance, focal length, and subject matter.

There's a difference, but it's the difference between very good lens and very, very good lens. The new version is better at 200mm, particularly at the edges, while the difference is not so much at shorter focal lengths.

Even at 200mm I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in an 8 X 10, especially if it's an action shot with a central subject and nothing of note around the edges and sides. In a larger print, or one with in-focus subject matter in the outer 1/3 of the image I think the difference is quite noticeable.



Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


RCicala wrote:
It's probably going to depend on the size of the prints, shooting distance, focal length, and subject matter.

There's a difference, but it's the difference between very good lens and very, very good lens. The new version is better at 200mm, particularly at the edges, while the difference is not so much at shorter focal lengths.

Even at 200mm I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in an 8 X 10, especially if it's an action shot with a central subject and nothing of note around the edges and sides. In a larger print, or one with
...Show more

Roger, would this difference at the edges be stopped down or wide open?



Mar 02, 2014 at 03:08 AM
Dawei Ye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


Comparing my two, the 70-200 II is basically a 200 f/2L that zooms but has worse bokeh (at the same aperture)


Mar 02, 2014 at 03:14 AM
mark fadely
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


I have owned a good copy of both and the MKII version is certainly better but I understand the OP shoots mostly for a school newspaper and I don't believe the printed images will be noticeably different.

The difference is certainly realized when a TC is attached however. The MKII images hold up very nicely with even a 2xTC whereas the original version of the lens suffered with poor focusing and ugly bokeh with either the 1.4 or 2x TC's. The 4 stop IS is nice to have with the MKII as well.

Here's a couple of shots I would not have gotten with the original 70-200 2.8L IS.

The first shot is with the bare lens at f2.8 and the second is with a 2xTC at f5.6.







Canon EOS 5D Mark II
ISO 500
Focal Length 190mm (190mm in 35mm)
Aperture f/2.8
Exposure Time 0.0006s (1/1600)
Name IMG_6590l.jpg
Date Taken 2011-05-11 20:57:20








Canon EOS 5D Mark II
ISO 500
Focal Length 400mm (400mm in 35mm)
Aperture f/5.6
Exposure Time 0.001s (1/1000)
Date Taken 2011-10-12 14:29:54






Mar 02, 2014 at 05:19 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



AnthonyRay
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


JayCeePhotog wrote:
Can someone show me the image quality difference between the two ?

Or can someone try to sway me to purchase one ?


They are 2 very different lenses. I actually got the Sigma 70-200 OS, which is far better than the first generation Canon (its target when developed) and stands up to the II in places, but just places.

I hate to point you here- but this interactive chart is one of the better ones I've seen for lens comparisons - choose the lens and the camera and check the aperture and focal length. I'd say it's pretty spot on for my Sigma - which has some very complex characteristics. Here I've dialed in the fist and second gen Canons, unfortunately the II on a 5D mkII, the first on a 5D, but you'll get the general idea. There's also Bryan's charts, but these only tell part of the story. I think at least here the first gen compares admirably. The AF on the 2nd generation is really fast and accurate - although my time with the first one was a long time ago and my memory...

You don't say what you're shooting with (or what you're doing with the shots), but if it's FF you might consider the f4 IS. It too is blindingly sharp. Or, if you're really trying to stick to a budget and really want f2.8, do consider the Sigma for only $1250. Again, considering you've got FF. Otherwise, the 50-150 is a pretty good choice. I'm not entirely convinced I'd have gotten f2.8 once I got my 6D. The low light performance is so good f4 works just fine in most applications. I say this because sometimes hauling around a 3lb. lens keeps me from taking it sometimes - I call it a bag lens, because that's how it gets from place to place



Mar 02, 2014 at 05:21 AM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


chez wrote:
Roger, would this difference at the edges be stopped down or wide open?


Wide open is what I referred to, but there's still some difference at f/5.6



Mar 02, 2014 at 11:10 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


RCicala wrote:
Wide open is what I referred to, but there's still some difference at f/5.6


Typically wide open people are not too concerned about corners as usually your subject is not in the corners and the wide stop results in small depth of field, usually out of focus corners. If the center of the image are close to being the same, then in print, I would doubt there would be any differences between the two lens. Now if you need to use TC's on the lens or maybe require the extra stop of stabilization, then VII might be a better choice, but with a $1,000 difference between the two lenses, I would think the version I would make a great lens for many.



Mar 02, 2014 at 01:28 PM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


I saw the difference on the first shot, albeit fully zoomed in, on the on-camera screen. It's a noticeably sharper lens, at least when pixel-peeping. I agree that for small prints the difference in sharpness is probably negligible. Both are very fine lenses. If you're printing 13x19 and you can genuinely afford the difference in price, you might find the Mk II more satisfactory.


Mar 02, 2014 at 01:50 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


I could tell the difference on the screen of my 7d.

I planned on keeping version 1 as a backup. Well...no.



Mar 03, 2014 at 03:27 AM
Tapeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


I felt the upgrade was worth it just viewing files. Maybe my version 1 wasn't that good? I'm very happy with the V 2


Mar 03, 2014 at 05:21 AM
tuantran
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


It's not just the sharpness that is the major difference. It's the contrast, color, IS and focusing. Little things here and there adds up to a major difference for me. That $1000 over time is puny to what I spend post processing and missing focusing because the focusing is not as fast. I had the ver. I for well over 10 years and I suspect I will have this for as long or maybe longer.


Mar 03, 2014 at 07:44 AM
BrianP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


I own both. The "II" is better, but if you get a good copy of the "I", I think most people would be happy it. I am still happy with my copies of the version I lens. I have a friend with the "I" and my copies are certainly better than his, so variance is potentially a real issue. From the forums, I am not seeing that there is as much variance with the "II".


Mar 03, 2014 at 04:28 PM
kzoockof
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


It all depends on ones needs and goals (and available funds). If you are shooting action sports or BIF at closer distances, the version 2 is blindingly fast in focusing.

I would even say with a 5 shot burst, the difference may be that you get 25% more in-focus shots. Does that make it 25% better? It depends on how you look at it. Sometimes the difference is either getting the shot or not getting the shot. In those circumstances that the V2 allows you to focus and capture the shot, the difference is huge! But how often in reality will that be the case?

You can and will always be able to get great shots with the V1, just because something new comes out, that doesn't make the prior version's results worse overall! And there were an awful lot of really happy pros with the version 1.

I have the V2 now, I love it. But I love it most for its fast focusing more than anything else. The confidence I have in this lens has never been matched by any other lens that I have owned!



Mar 03, 2014 at 05:28 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS I vs IS II


kzoockof wrote:
If you are shooting action sports or BIF at closer distances, the version 2 is blindingly fast in focusing.


Hmmmm, I shot sports with a non IS version for many years and I would not say the AF of the IS II is blindingly fast in comparison to it. A little better at best. I don't even notice that much difference between the two with a 1.4x on and I've got the latest version.

Was the IS v1 that bad?



Mar 03, 2014 at 05:50 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password