This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
p.2 #1What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
ThanksI 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...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.
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
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.
Oct 05, 2011 at 04:50 PM
p.2 #2What 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.
But the glass is a solid investment.
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.
But the glass is a solid investment.
Oct 05, 2011 at 04:52 PM
p.2 #3What 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.
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.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.
Oct 05, 2011 at 05:36 PM
p.2 #4What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Daan B wrote:
Don't know about the 1st.. but the mkII is simply amazing
I totally agree!!
Don't know about the 1st.. but the mkII is simply amazing
I totally agree!!
Oct 05, 2011 at 06:59 PM
p.2 #5What 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.
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.
Oct 05, 2011 at 08:08 PM
p.2 #6What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
70-200 F2.8MkII on it's way to my house shortly.... 
Oct 06, 2011 at 02:00 PM
p.2 #7What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I own a Version 1 and used the Version 2.
The image quality improved enough for me to want one.
The IS, USM and Minimum Focusing Distance improvements are icing on the cake.
And I do not use zooms all that often.
The image quality improved enough for me to want one.
The IS, USM and Minimum Focusing Distance improvements are icing on the cake.
And I do not use zooms all that often.
Oct 06, 2011 at 03:06 PM
p.2 #8What 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!
Oct 06, 2011 at 03:27 PM
p.2 #9What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Congrats!!! They pay more attention that we think they do!!!
Oct 06, 2011 at 04:26 PM
p.2 #10What 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.
Oct 06, 2011 at 04:42 PM
p.2 #11What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Gotta agree with the hood. Very nice touch.
Oct 06, 2011 at 05:19 PM
p.2 #12What 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!!!)
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!!!)
Oct 06, 2011 at 06:24 PM
p.2 #13What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
That's funny, I hate the new hoods and was wondering if anyone removes the lock successfully.
EBH
EBH
Oct 06, 2011 at 07:03 PM
p.2 #14What 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
-Cam
Oct 06, 2011 at 07:15 PM
p.2 #15What 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.
Oct 06, 2011 at 07:27 PM
p.2 #16What 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....)
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....)
Oct 06, 2011 at 08:11 PM
p.2 #17What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Don't sell the 135 yet. It's got a HUGE benefit over the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in size and weight (not to mention one stop).
Oct 06, 2011 at 08:34 PM
p.2 #18What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Hi Richard - I don't own the 135.... yet! Perhaps one day!
Oct 06, 2011 at 08:43 PM
p.2 #19What 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!
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!
Oct 07, 2011 at 02:29 AM
p.2 #20What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Richard Nye wrote:
Don't sell the 135 yet. It's got a HUGE benefit over the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in size and weight (not to mention one stop).
not to mention black color too
Don't sell the 135 yet. It's got a HUGE benefit over the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in size and weight (not to mention one stop).
not to mention black color too
Oct 07, 2011 at 06:38 AM