Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource
  

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's

  
 
EyrePhoto
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Hello All,

I am looking to buy both a Canon 24-70 2.8 L and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L lens. I will be finishing my last classes and graduating after this semester and won't be able to borrow lenses from our photography department after Christmas.

Luckily my time interning for the athletics department has turned into a job as the sole sports photographer for the University's athletics department, unfortunately this means buying my gear and doing it rather quickly so I can be ready post-grad.

I am asking for some input from other shooters on their opinion between the Mark I and Mark II versions of these lenses. I recognize that the II lenses are the better lenses, but what I am trying to balance is cost vs quality. I do believe that buying the best lenses is important to getting great images, but also believe in being wise with my budget as I try to stretch it as far as possible. (Buying both of the version II lenses at current average used prices I see on forums like the FM buy and sell would almost tap out my budget).

A professor just sold me his 1DX and 1D IV (he's getting ready to retire and moved to the lighter body of the 7D II for sports and kept his 5D3 for everything else), so I feel set in the camera department, now its time to add the lenses. I bought the Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport at a great price also. So far though that's my kit, which I am proud of putting together, but need to add other essential pieces.

If anyone with experience with both of these lenses, or other photographers who have also had to balance out this fundamental issue for any photographer (newest most current and most expensive vs. still great lens and almost half the price) was willing to weigh in, I would appreciate any and all feedback.

I posted 9 months ago with questions about getting things going, and got great responses about getting the business side of things started, as well as lenses and that feedback was so amazing. Based on what I heard, I added this fall semester (I was supposed to graduate last spring) and took a business and marketing class as well as 2 elective photography courses and another media class (which were enough to give me a second major) that have me feeling even better equipped to get out there.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to some of my work - https://www.flickr.com/photos/129628226@N05/sets/72157649135878560/

Thank you for reading this long message. As far as I am concerned, feedback and wisdom from experienced photographers in this forum is the best way to learn and prepare and move as wisely as possible into the next steps of my photographic journey.

Wow, this turned into a lot more than just Mk I vs Mk II.

Sincerely,

Scott

Scott



Nov 30, 2014 at 06:06 PM
Russ Isabella
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Scott,
A brief look at your link left me impressed by the quality and variety of your work. Congratulations on your job (and your degree!).

I think that if you have the funds, you might as well go for the Mark II of the 70-200 lens. It's an absolute workhorse for a sports photographer, and getting the best you can afford just makes sense.

Regarding the 24-70, my first question to you is what you think you will use it for. I very rarely use a 24-70 lens for my shooting. It's convenient to have, but I'm sure I could get by without it. What function do you think it will serve for you? Would an f/4 version be acceptable, particularly given the 1Dx's high-ISO ability (this is something I've been contemplating)? I'm just suggesting that before you purchase these lenses, you question your assumptions about them being the next most logical lenses to add to your kit. They may be, but I'd want to be sure before dropping the $$ (Of course, since I've never owned or used a Mark II 24-70, it's possible that if I did, I'd use it a lot more frequently because it would perform better than the Mark I that I own. This would argue for buying the Mark II! )



Nov 30, 2014 at 06:18 PM
sleepy717
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Scott,
My comments basically mirror Russ's comments. I shoot motor sports, and the lens I use for 90% of my work is a 70-200 II. I also
use it for football and baseball along with a 1.4 converter, but I feel that combo is often a bit short. I have a 24-70, but rarely use it. I thought I'd use it, but I just don't. My preference is a 25-105. None of what I shoot is "set up", it's all on the fly. I also don't shoot indoors much; if I did, I'd probably lean more towards the 24-70 since it's a 2.8. I have a 100-400, but don't feel image quality is strong enough.

I looked at your gallery from the link you provided, and really liked what was there. Nice stuff and good luck.

Brent




Nov 30, 2014 at 06:56 PM
JohnBrose
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


I would suggest the Mk1 on the 24-70 f2.8 and mk2 on the 70-200 f2.8. you could almost get a 16-35 f4 with the savings and that would be a much smarter purchase or get a wide prime like the Rokinon 14mm so you can do some different shots.


Nov 30, 2014 at 07:08 PM
EyrePhoto
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Russ,

Thank you for that fast reply.

In regards to the 24-70, we have one in our library of lenses and I have used it for most of my near end shots of basketball. The SID prefers wide shots as he uses extremely wide images for almost all of his game summaries, and other online material. This limits how I tend to shoot to landscape, and I find the 70-200 a bit too tight when I am setup right under the basket and not vertical. While I rarely expect to shoot at 2.8 for sports, I like having it as an option, especially when shooting in some of the older barns some of our competitors play in.

I also like the width the lens affords for team shots.

I am all for not going the 24-70 route, I have considered the 24-105 4.0 as another option and I think I would go that route if I were to go 4.0 over the 24-70 4.0 for the extra 35mm I get from the 24-105, not to mention the additional $ savings. I think the low cost is why I shied away from it in my deliberations, fearing that I was going to get what I paid for...



Nov 30, 2014 at 07:09 PM
EyrePhoto
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Brent,

Thanks for your thoughts. It sounds like the 70-200 II is a no-brainer and I expect it would be my workhorse lens, especially based on comments so far.


John,

Going even wider is a thought I've had and is on the list of eventual purchases. Making a couple adjustments to the lens purchases now to allow me to purchase it now and get even more creative is very intriguing. I like the idea of offering slightly different shots to supplement the standard images from a game.



Nov 30, 2014 at 07:15 PM
JMDobson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Back when I was a Canon shooter, I loved my 24-70 version 1. I'm sure the new one is a little better, but honestly, my favorite part about the old lens was its build quality. I've dropped it a few times, and even had it in a bit of sea water and still keep performing at its best. I don't think the newer one with all of its plastic could have survived that punishment. Use that extra money saved for an ultra-wide. I loved my 17-40.


Nov 30, 2014 at 09:50 PM
timgangloff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Both my 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70 2.8 II are heads and shoulders above the v.1 of these lenses. I now use the 24-70 all the time for baseline basketball shooting where with the v.1 I tried to avoid using it.

And Russ, yes, if you had the v2 of the 24-70 I am sure you would use it a lot more on the baseline. I think it also works well as a point and shoot lens for tight shots on football sidelines when the 70-200 is just too long.

Of course, the 24-70 is a great portrait lens you will probably need for your new job. Too many group shoots will be too big for the 70-200.

As info, my kit is very simple, 24-70, 70-200 and 400 2.8 is. In your case, the 120-300 and 70-200 have a lot of overlap and may be redundant. I had the old 120-300 and liked it, but it was not in the same league as the 70-200 v2. Yours may be better.

Oh, for the record, the 24-70 v2 is very solid. Its not nearly as heavy as the v1, but after falling on it while hiking with it and dropping it to the pavement, it is no worse for wear (and it did not even leave any marks on the lens, save for a small mark on the much smaller hood.

The attached image doesn't really show how sharp the 24-70 is, but it does show you how you can capture images from tight on the baseline that the 70-200 is too tight for and frankly, would have not been this sharp with my v1 of the lens.




24-70 v2



Edited on Dec 01, 2014 at 10:02 PM · View previous versions



Nov 30, 2014 at 09:55 PM
gene2632
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


I can't speak about the 24-70 Mark I vs Mark II, I have the Mark 1 and it is a nice, useful lens. I have owned and loved a bunch of the 70-200 2.8s starting with the old original magic drain pipe, the 80-200. Each version has been better than the last. I love my 70-200 IS Mark II. Plain and simple I love it. It is sharp, no question about it. It also works well with the TC 1.4 Mark III. In the past, I could see the difference when I put at TC on a 70-200, now I can't see it, other than the loss of one stop. The 70-200 Mark II is a good place to spend the extra money, plain and simple. You also might consider starting now to put some money away for a Canon 300 2.8 IS, another incredible lens that works well with the Mark III TC. Congrats on your degree and your new job.


Dec 01, 2014 at 12:06 AM
EyrePhoto
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Thank you to everyone who have given an opinion, and for the congratulations of the job and degree. It is amazing to get such a wide array of opinions - you all give me lots to think about. I appreciate the friendliness and willingness to give opinions in this forum and hope to engage it more as both someone with questions but maybe as I develop, someone who has an opinion to share.

Tim, thank you for sharing that photo, it is exactly the angle that I know I wouldn't be able to get with a 70-200 and because there are very few (if any) other photographers at our games, I pretty much have my choice of place to setup, and under the hoop is a favorite.

Thanks again for your thoughts, I am open to any others who want to share, I am always up for learning, this is definitely a learning process and I am nowhere near getting my professional "degree".

Scott



Dec 01, 2014 at 08:09 PM
gschlact
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Scott,
Tim really hit the important points. I'll add, I've had two copies of the 24-70 mk i's, shot with 70-200 mk i's and now own both mk ii's. (And shoot with 7dc)

I exclusively use the 24-70 for near court basketball. The mk I was not measly as accurate AF, combined with the sharpness imprvements, I felt like it gave me 1 stop of car it improvement over mk i.

Given that you have the 120-300 f2.8 Sport version, you have a lot of overlap with the 70-200, and have very high quality too. My recommendation wunderkind be the 24-70 mk ii used copy or refurb. Get a really good 1.4G CT ad you have the 70-100 rang covered if worried.

Other ideas:
Sell the Sigma. Buy both mk ii's, canon 1.4x iii, and kenkoo 1.4x dgx pro 300. I estimate about $4200 used prices for the purchases - $3000 sale proceeds. Thow in the Canon 300mm f4 and use naked or with the 1.4x to cover the 400 mm range for another $1000. So all this for about $2200 outlay for a very full kit.



Dec 01, 2014 at 09:53 PM
Phil McNeil
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


The new 24-70 is indeed "that good." And as stated, the 70-200 II is a winner. Make the stretch to get both if you can. Maybe find a no interest deal? One guy I work with has bought via Best Buy's zero interest deal a couple times now.

With all that money tied up in gear you should have good insurance too.



Dec 02, 2014 at 07:40 AM
Russ Isabella
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


timgangloff wrote:
And Russ, yes, if you had the v2 of the 24-70 I am sure you would use it a lot more on the baseline. I think it also works well as a point and shoot lens for tight shots on football sidelines when the 70-200 is just too long.



Thanks, Tim. I was afraid of (and needed) that. Time to consider the upgrade...



Dec 02, 2014 at 10:02 AM
bpalermini
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


I went to your site and it looks to me like you can get great results out of pretty much anything you use.

If you can do it get the Mk II of both lenses. That will set you up to not need to upgrade them for quite a while. If you get MK I you will be thinking about upgrading sooner than you think.

I have a 24-70 II and it is outstanding, looks like a prime to me. I have a 70-200 IS and it is great but some day . . .



Dec 02, 2014 at 04:04 PM
gschlact
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Russ - which lens do you currently use when under the basket / baseline? (assuming on your 1dx or 5d3 non-crop)


Dec 02, 2014 at 04:42 PM
Russ Isabella
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


Guy: I use a 70-200 almost exclusively.


Dec 02, 2014 at 05:01 PM
pjbuehner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


I owned the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 24-70 2.8 Mk I
Both of those lenses sat in my bag in favor of prime lenses for most of my work.

The mark II versions of both lenses are far superior to my older ones. Superior in focus, clarity, contrast, and sharpness across the entire frame. In my opinion, if you can afford it, the money spent on the mark II is worth it. But...it is a lot of money.

I will now use the 24-70 for group shots that fill the frame...I couldn't do that with the older one and instead used a 50mm prime lens. I don't use it for any action shooting except for the occasional wide angle from under the net in basketball...but that is rare. What I use it for are team shots, PJ style coverage during intermissions and time outs,etc.

I still use the 85mm 1.8, 135 F2.0, and 200 F2.0 over the 70-200 for sports but the 70-200 is more than capable and is a staple for not just sports shooters but across all disciplines.

good luck




Dec 04, 2014 at 06:54 AM
EyrePhoto
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


All,

Just another thank you for all the input. My new 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II came today and I can't wait to get to my next game. All of the input has been great and I think I am going to be looking to get something wide angle next. I also have a lot of interest in putting together a remote camera or two for some new and unique angles.

Thanks again for the input, feel free to keep it coming!!!

Also, I"d welcome thoughts on the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport (currently in my bag) vs the Canon 300 mm 2.8 non IS (seems like something I could afford if I were to sell the Sigma). Always looking to put better glass in my bag.



Dec 05, 2014 at 05:47 PM
gene2632
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


The biggest draw back to the Canon 300 2.8 Non-IS is the lack of repair parts. Canon no longer makes the part, no longer works on them at all. Some third party repair places will still have parts and will work on them but as time goes on things like USM motors get harder and harder to find. You could well end up with an expensive paperweight. I am not a fan of the Sigmas but I have not seen much of the newer 120-300. You might want to stick with it for a year and then move up when you can afford it or maybe you can find one of those no interest deals mentioned by others but... always look at the bottom line cost. Sometimes the no interest is hidden in the purchase price.


Dec 06, 2014 at 12:14 AM
pjbuehner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Your opinion on the Canon Mk I vs Mk II 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's


EyrePhoto:
I have been shooting sports for several years now and have been getting by with a 300 2.8 as my longest lens and have been successful enough to get the job done and satisfy my various clients.
That being said, I think a 400 2.8 would be a better choice (for me for sure...so maybe you too?)
I am on the lookout for a good condition 400mm 2.8 IS and am going to sell my 300 and here is why
1. As I got better, I could shoot tighter.
2. For all field sports that I shoot (football, soccer, field hockey, baseball, softball) a 400 would let me get better angles
3. a 400 2.8 get shots that stand out: tight crops, buttery background, great subject isolation
4. the longest lens at 2.8 and very often 2.8 is pushing the light gathering ability

All that being said, you can get a teleconverter and move your feet more with a 300 but since you have a very very nice 70-200, a 400 gets you more coverage. Right now my standard football setup is a 300 2.8 with a 1.4x on a 1D IV and a 200mm F2.0 on a 5D III. I carry a 70-200 2.8 II and a 24-70 2.8 II for most games but they are on my waist. If I had a third body, I would likely have the 24-70 ready to go.

Just thoughts. The 400 will set you back a substantial bit more but I doubt that you would regret it.

Good luck

BUT: going back to your question. The 300 2.8 is an amazing lens and I have zero criticisms of it. the 120-300 sounds fantastic on paper. Historically the Sigma brand has had AF questions which has stopped me from going that way. I have adjusted to the prime lens quiver and prefer it. All reports I have read seem to say that Sigma is doing wonders with their IQ but you are the best judge of AF abilities since you own it. Canon is fast, accurate, and reliable.



Dec 06, 2014 at 10:45 AM





FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

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.