Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  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
  

Archive 2014 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?

  
 
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


Iq is better on the IS v2 version but I doubt you will notice it for what your shooting. The composition and posing and action will be way more important than the difference in iq.

Fashion and portraits in natural light
IS will show up off tripod for fashion. You will be able to shoot at lower shutter speeds.

Studio with off camera flash (but inside I'd use another lens maybe so it's not so tight)
You won't notice the IS

Occasional sports indoor basketball only
You won't notice the difference in IS because IS only helps stabilize you - not the subject


So is it worth it to be able to shoot at 1/2 the shutter speed for natural light fashion.

Only you can decide.




Jul 23, 2014 at 07:55 AM
wnichols
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


I would keep the IS v2 considering what you are shooting. I have the non-IS version but shoot 99% sports with a shutter speed > 1/500 so the IS is no big deal to me. Yes, it would be better but not $1000 better.


Jul 23, 2014 at 08:42 AM
ebiggs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


This isn't even a choice, go with the Mk II version with IS.
IMHO, it is the best lens on the planet. It would be the last lens that left ny inventory.



Jul 23, 2014 at 08:48 AM
pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


+1 on the Mk II.....

I loved my non-IS until I got the Mk II--- the difference in IQ is quite noticeable... the Mk II is sharper and more contrasty...... and of course, it has IS......

IMHO, the only reason to even consider a non-IS 70-200 2.8L is if one cannot afford the Mk II.....



Jul 23, 2014 at 09:29 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "the best one" and there's no need to say which that one is for reasons other than IQ.

Edited on Jul 24, 2014 at 01:38 AM · View previous versions



Jul 23, 2014 at 11:51 PM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


ebiggs wrote:
This isn't even a choice, go with the Mk II version with IS.
IMHO, it is the best lens on the planet. It would be the last lens that left ny inventory.


It would be a tough choice between that and my 85L. The 70-200 mk II is just the perfect workhorse lens. There really isn't much it cannot do excellently. It is like shooting with a prime f/2.8 lens at every focal length with a legitimate 4 stop IS unit backing you up.

Only thing that isn't absolutely phenomenal about it is that the bokeh is just good, not perfect.



Jul 24, 2014 at 12:34 AM
mttran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


Beside the focus (optical) shift while stops down, slrgear tloader does not say much between two lenses: Might be IS and less shift help AF so does MK II sharpness, it would be nice to have a real life tripod comparison test of all three 70-200 f2.8 zooms

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon70-200f28/ff/tloader.htm
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon70-200f28lis2/ff/tloader.htm

I would keep the old version if you already have a good copy. Anyway, a good calibration job will bring a better life out of any lens



Jul 24, 2014 at 12:52 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


Two sides of the coin ...

giballi wrote:
(it's just outside of the return policy).

Did you try?

I just called and got an RMA for an unopened item that was several weeks past the return policy date. If you haven't opened it yet, it is at least worth a phone call to ask.

msalvetti wrote:
Whether you take it out of the box or not, it is used now. There is risk to any buyer that they wouldn't have to bear if they were to buy new, so at this point I don't think taking the MkII out of the box for a few test shots is going to hurt your resale value.


Prospective buyers would like to see sample images from it anyway.

Here's one way to look at it ... if you had rented the MK II in order to test it out for a week and compare it against your MK I, you'd be out the cost of the rental. By purchasing it, you get to test it out for longer than a week and compare it against your MK I ... your depreciation cost isn't that much different than your rental cost (especially) once you consider the time factor you spend comparing the two once you go past a week of use.

We often advocate renting a lens prior to assessing a significant purchase decision, but with a little perspective adjustment, you can "buy & keep" or "buy & sell" to arrive at a similar comparative decision.

The basic scenarios play out as:

1) Rent, don't buy
2) Rent, then buy
3) Buy, then return
4) Buy, then sell
5) Buy, then keep

Each have their pros/cons at how much $$$ you risk / tie up along the way, but the reality is that each strategy has a little different relationship @ capital outlay for making an assessment ... and the time frame for which you can perform your assessment. Something along the lines of "time is money".



Jul 24, 2014 at 06:20 AM
Guest

Guest
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


If I had had the IS II, I would not have parted with it willingly. Though for now, the IS non-II is a damn fine lens (at about 1/2 the price). I would not want to downgrade to the non-IS, I'd get a 70-200/4 IS before that.


Jul 24, 2014 at 07:22 AM
Glenn NK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


thedutt wrote:
You have both lenses why not try a head on compare of your favorite subjects and then decide?


Seems like an obvious course of action to me.

But in particular, shoot the same subjects with slower shutter speeds (try 1/20 or so) and then compare results. I strongly suspect that the value of the IS will become very apparent.



Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM
Toby1kenobi
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


giballi wrote:
I just didn't want to use it then have to sell it as "used"

The copy of the non is I have is super sharp, my buddy also has an MKII and he says the IQ is pretty close. But I'm sure the mkii is slightly better

I could use the 1k towards some expenses I have coming up but the way everyone carrys on about the mkii I don't want to sell it if it's the most amazing thing ever.

I just want some feedback from people who have shot both and what they think. Also based on my shooting style if
...Show more

Why not borrow your friend's IS II and compare yourself and put your mind at ease either way?



Jul 24, 2014 at 01:01 PM
jojomon11
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


Sell the NON-IS model, keep the MKII


Jul 24, 2014 at 01:29 PM
trumpet_guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?



Peter Figen wrote:
My copy of the non IS was extremely sharp, but my copy of the MKII is even sharper, particularly wide open at 200mm. And then there's the image stabilization...


My non-IS is also very good. I bought the 2.8 IS II and found it not be a very good copy, so I sent it back. For now I don't feel a need to try another copy. However, if you are not getting the quality you need from the nom-IS, give one a try. I doubt it will offer you much in a stopped-down studio environment. At wide open, it should. I would trust Peter's assessment.



Jul 26, 2014 at 10:30 PM
hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


I own both. The non-IS version is an excellent lens, but not as sharp as the IS version II, which is one of the finest zooms ever made. Since I'm a photojournalist, I put the well-used non-IS version in a drawer to use as a backup.


Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20 AM
tonytastic
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


I think the non-IS is all fun and games until you're shooting in a dark church at 6400ISO and 1/50th of a second.


Jul 29, 2014 at 08:39 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


I used an original (though throughly abused when I got it) 70-200mm f/2.8L for many years, and it was a truly fine lens. Modern glass has nothing on many of the older lenses. Still I came into a bit of mad cash and went for the IS Ver. II and don't regret it at all. I don't use the IS in sports work, but for everything else it is helpful, plus (and this is probably a bit subjective) I think the latest version is sharper than the original. One thing for sure is that Canon's current version of this telephoto is among their best lenses.

Robert



Jul 29, 2014 at 08:56 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


OntheRez wrote:
Modern glass has nothing on many of the older lenses... the IS Ver. II ... is sharper than the original. One thing for sure is that Canon's current version of this telephoto is among their best lenses.


Didn't you just contradict your primary point? ;-)



Jul 29, 2014 at 09:12 AM
BrianP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


Most things have already been stated, but I haven't seen one other consideration that makes a difference to me. The MFD is a foot closer with the Mk2 IS lens. This can be real for a number of situations.


Jul 29, 2014 at 10:48 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Which 70-200 2.8 do I keep?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Didn't you just contradict your primary point? ;-)


Yeah, but who says I have to be consistent My point was that likely the coatings available at the time are probably not still useable in this more environmental aware era. Old lens ≠ bad lens. Nevertheless, I've found the latest 70-200mm f/2.8 IS to outperform the older version even if it had a better "secret sauce."

Robert




Jul 29, 2014 at 11:13 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.