p.1 #4 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I've never owned the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, used it, but not owned. The Mk II has Magic Drainpipe qualities with a great IS system. I think that sums it up...
p.1 #7 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
gpop wrote:
mkII has a tricky new hood.
I personally am a fan. I love how it locks. My 100-400 hood has gotten slightly looser over time and it can work itself off. Not an issue on the 70-200 2.8 MkII
p.1 #9 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Hey thanks! No, I want the f2.8. I was hoping someone would say, nah, they aren't THAT different. Have to find a decently priced used one, me-thinks. Yep, I need the IS....
p.1 #10 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
reno.peterson wrote:
The Mk II has Magic Drainpipe qualities with a great IS system.
Reno,
You left out the better focusing feature of the Mark II over the MDP. Oh, I wouldn't even mention its superior optical performance over the other lens because I know some people wouldn't necessarily agree with me and that's why I left that aspect alone here.
p.1 #11 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
IMO this is the best lens hood from Canon, and I believe it's similar to the Nikon design. The previous Canon hoods were crap.
I've never owned the original version of the 70-200L but the Mk II is, without a doubt ... prime-lens quality. It is as sharp as my 85L and 100L. Stick a 1.4x TC (and it doesn't have to be a Mk III) and there is no appreciable loss of IQ and a negligible loss of AF/tracking speed.
In my books the 70-200L II is better value than any other white Canon lens!
p.1 #12 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Before I bought the mkii I thought "Whats the fuss? My Mk1 is really good, how can the new one be better?" Since I sold the mk1 and bought the mk2 I dont ask myself that question anymore.
The new hood is awesome, its not tricky, it makes sense (I knocked the hood off my mk1 several times and even nearly lost it in a Venetian canal!), the focus speed is electric, the wide open sharpness and contrast is excellent and IS is a heck of a lot better too. You can tell there are 10+ years between the designs. The old one is good, the new one is excellent!
p.1 #13 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
AGeoJO wrote:
Reno,
You left out the better focusing feature of the Mark II over the MDP. Oh, I wouldn't even mention its superior optical performance over the other lens because I know some people wouldn't necessarily agree with me and that's why I left that aspect alone here.
Joshua
That's why I stated loosely "Magic Drainpipe qualities"...
p.1 #15 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
rachelsdad wrote:
How much better is the IQ on the MK2 than the non IS 70-200 F2.8? I really don't need the IS. Steven
I never handled the non-IS but wide-open the MK2 IS is considerably sharper and contrastier than the MK1 IS. The MK2 is so good that I sold my 200 f2 IS and never looked back. It is a stellar optic that just delivers jaw-dropping images every time. In my testing I found it noticeably sharper than the Nikon equivalent, particularly in the corners wide-open.
Here's a resolution chart comparison between the non IS and MK2, wide-open @ 200mm:
p.1 #16 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I think it's pretty much a lock. I was considering the 135L, but I think this zoom will serve me well both in Africa and for portraits, etc. I know, the 135 is a beaut. But there is only so much $$$ to go around. Thanks for all the input and examples!
p.1 #18 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Sharona wrote:
I've read reviews and all, but would anyone care to tell me why the 70-200 f2.8MkII is better? Is its performance really that much better?
Thanks
I have both, and although my copy of the mk I was pretty good, the mk II is better in most areas. It is tack sharp wide open, whereas my mk I was good wide open. The mk II clearly has better IS, the smaller mfd is noticeable and makes is great close-up lens - brilliant for flower portraits. Note the mk I was very good from f/3.2 and above f/4 there wouldn't be a lot of difference, but the mk II has slightly better contrast and colour - probably from the new coatings. But one big difference is performance with TC's, mk II is clearly better and does well even with the 2x, not something I would use on the mk I.
I'm almost tempted to sell my 135L, but I don't think I could ever do that, as good a the mk II performs.
p.1 #19 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
135L-like colors, sharpness and micro-contrast, world-beating IS, better focusing consistency (it just works on any body I have tried it with), a locking hood, and a higher price.
That said, a properly calibrated 70-200 2.8 IS is a very good lens; just not quite in the same league as the new one.
p.1 #20 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I am lucky to have the MKII lens, but sources telling me that my 1DMKII is to old for this lens. The dilema is what camera body should I be getting, the 5D, 5DMKII or may be the T2i-550D with the 1.6X crop. I would shoot mostly landscapes and don't want to put much money into the body but I do have the best optics by Canon.
.
great zoom no doubt