p.2 #1 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
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....Show more →
Pixel - I think you nailed it. For me I just can't believe how well the new 70-200 works with the new teleconverters. It makes a convincing 400mm. And that's coming from me - a prime lover.
p.2 #2 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
santila wrote:
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.
Glass is the best investment - it holds it's value.
The cameras they depreciate so fast. Better to just wait on the camera until you strike it rich or until you can find one cheap used. Heck - you can do serious damage with just a Rebel if you need to.
p.2 #3 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
netexpress wrote:
Glass is the best investment - it holds it's value.
The cameras they depreciate so fast. Better to just wait on the camera until you strike it rich or until you can find one cheap used. Heck - you can do serious damage with just a Rebel if you need to.
But the glass is a solid investment.
Oh yeah! If I had known the Mk II lenses would cost so much more I would have held on to my 300/2.8L, etc ... as they appreciate as soon as Canon releases the Mk II versions. At this point in time the white lenses (Mk I versions) are better investments than property, oil or gold.
p.2 #5 · 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
Rachelsdad,
I've owned all three versions and put thousands of images through all of them. I had a really good copy of the Mk1 IS but it was not as good as my non IS. I currently have the non 2.8 IS and MkII and I will say the non IS is not to far off the MKII in sharpness. If you shoot sports and you're on a budget the 2.8 non IS is a no brainer.
p.2 #8 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I'm very happy to finally be getting this lens. My husband, who is not a photographer and generally doesn't pay all that much attention to my gear, shocked me when he said: "Oh that's the lens you've been wanting for awhile now..." Didn't know he remembered!
p.2 #10 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
It is worse in price and size, anything else is much better. Small thing - even hood is better. I changed 3 different 70-200mm lenses, so far best among other.
p.2 #12 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
datousteve wrote:
I agree. the hood rocks. Also like the new finish. Less prone to scratches.
If 2.8 isn't necessary for u, the f4 IS may offer better bang for the buck
Hood lock is great. Hood scratches really easily.
The 2.8II produces fantastic shots on the 1DIV - looks much nicer than the f4IS (which is better to carry). Sold the I before getting the II, so hard to compare, just very happy with the II
Can't wait till a new 24-105 comes out with the hood lock (Please!!!)
p.2 #14 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Congratulations Sharona, you are now a member of a club I'd like to join one day. Does this mean you've shelved the 135 f/2 for now? Also, may I ask where you decided to purchase? Was there much variance in price? Thanks...
-Cam
p.2 #15 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
The biggest difference is where the MKI was weakest - at 200mm and 2.8. The new lens has absolutely none of the lower contrast wide open haze that the MKI had. Plus the resolution and contrast are easily equal to the 200 1.8 or 2.0. Actually, this new lens is sharper wide open than the 200 1.8 wide open and both are equal at 2.8. THAT's how good this lens is. Am I selling my 200 1.8? No. But I don't use it nearly as much as I used to. This new zoom takes teleconverters extraordinarily well, too. I've only seen 2X examples, but the 1.4 shot wide open at 280mm are very very good. This is hands down the best zoom lens I have ever used. Far better than anything else available. Weak points are flare resistance and as with all zooms in this range, some barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion at the long end.
p.2 #16 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Well, again, I am over the moon to have this lens on the way. Hope I do it justice!
Onegreatcity - I bought the lens here on the forum. It was a new lens, so I didn't get much of a discount. It was a lens that a member bought in connection with a body that he never intended to use. And yes, the 135 has been shelved for now. (only in my dreams....!) It seems as though this lens will do most of what the 135 will do (I said MOST....)
p.2 #19 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I've done the long march!
2.8L->2.8LIS->2.8LIS Mk2 and my findings are:
The new Mk2 is simply outstanding! I payed premium to get the lens early, still have no regrets.
Save up get the Mk2.... it is *that* good!
Seriously, you get f:2.8 lens to use it at 2.8, and this lens is sharp and full of contrast wide open. This is a big deal for me!
