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.3 #1What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I can't imagine needing the version II since I have version I. The biggest problem I have with the old version is flare control kinda sucks...but that can be worked around. I really don't see any need to upgrade, since the old model does everything I need it to.
Oct 07, 2011 at 07:15 AM
p.3 #2What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
It is definitely and clearly better. However, whether it's that noticeable - especially if you're shooting fairly close at f2.8 - is questionable.
I nearly upgraded from I to II this year, and then realised I wasn't going to get much for my money (it does the same job fundamentally) and decided it was better for me to spend the money on other lenses which will give me new creative options.
But your decision might be different
I nearly upgraded from I to II this year, and then realised I wasn't going to get much for my money (it does the same job fundamentally) and decided it was better for me to spend the money on other lenses which will give me new creative options.
But your decision might be different
Oct 07, 2011 at 07:28 AM
p.3 #3What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Thanks all - I didn't own any of these, so the question I had in my mind was, should I buy a used mk1, or splash out for mkII? In the end I chose MkII and I am happy with that decision!
Oct 07, 2011 at 07:57 AM
p.3 #4What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Sharona wrote:
Thanks all - I didn't own any of these, so the question I had in my mind was, should I buy a used mk1, or splash out for mkII? In the end I chose MkII and I am happy with that decision!
In that case, it's the right decision
Thanks all - I didn't own any of these, so the question I had in my mind was, should I buy a used mk1, or splash out for mkII? In the end I chose MkII and I am happy with that decision!
In that case, it's the right decision
Oct 07, 2011 at 08:04 AM
p.3 #5What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Main difference - IS not counted - for me is shooting wide open from 160mm onwards. My (calibrated) MkI was notoriously soft wide open in the 160-200mm range and needed at least f/4 to become decent and f/5.6 to get good. The MkII performs excellently wide open from 70 to 200mm. It's as sharp as my magnificent 135L and my equally superb 70-200/4 IS. Factor in the IS which makes getting good shots @ 200mm and 1/30s a breeze and there's absolutely no question about which lens one should get. None.
So, Sharona: well chosen. Have fun!
So, Sharona: well chosen. Have fun!
Oct 07, 2011 at 08:43 AM
p.3 #6What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Merci beaucoup, Emile!
Oct 07, 2011 at 09:48 AM
p.3 #7What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Congrats Sharona! You have made the right decision. I promise you that you will love this lens. I see that you have the 85/1.8 and 200/2.8. Do a test. If your 70-200L II is not as sharp as your prime lenses it means that you do not have a good copy of the lens ... and you should either return it to the seller or send it to Canon for recalibration.
The 70-200L II should be as sharp as or sharper than your 85 and 200 primes. AND you will see no appreciable loss of IQ with either the 1.4x II or III.
Good Luck!
Sharona wrote:
Well, again, I am over the moon to have this lens on the way. Hope I do it justice!
The 70-200L II should be as sharp as or sharper than your 85 and 200 primes. AND you will see no appreciable loss of IQ with either the 1.4x II or III.
Good Luck!
Sharona wrote:
Well, again, I am over the moon to have this lens on the way. Hope I do it justice!
Oct 07, 2011 at 10:23 AM
p.3 #8What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I've owned all three versions, and the Mark II really is head and shoulders above the MK I IS. The MK I is weak at 200mm while the non IS version is better.
Still, I kept my f/4 IS solely due to the weight. Its plenty sharp and since I use primes in low light, its great for outdoor use in daytime.
Still, I kept my f/4 IS solely due to the weight. Its plenty sharp and since I use primes in low light, its great for outdoor use in daytime.
Oct 07, 2011 at 10:54 AM
p.3 #9What 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
If I can only own one lens from Canon lens series , 70-200 F2.8 II that is.
Images quality is Amazing, sharpness is unlike any other, auto focus is quick for sport photography.
Very heavy If you have to carry it for prolong with pro body attached.
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
If I can only own one lens from Canon lens series , 70-200 F2.8 II that is.
Images quality is Amazing, sharpness is unlike any other, auto focus is quick for sport photography.
Very heavy If you have to carry it for prolong with pro body attached.
Oct 09, 2011 at 08:25 AM
p.3 #10What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
All the Mk II Canon whites are super-amazing. Now let's see what Canon does with the 5D III and 1Ds IV. Good times ahead for all Canon shooters ... if you have bucket loads of cash!
Oct 09, 2011 at 10:04 AM
p.3 #11What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
IS will amaze you.
Oct 09, 2011 at 10:17 AM
p.3 #12What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Alanu wrote:
IS will amaze you.
Yes I agree .
Only for those who know how to used it and when not to turn on IS.
IS could be very useful tool.
IS will amaze you.
Yes I agree .
Only for those who know how to used it and when not to turn on IS.
IS could be very useful tool.
Oct 09, 2011 at 10:41 AM
p.3 #13What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Nice, Bobby! Good to see that it works so well with the 1.4!
Oct 09, 2011 at 11:06 AM
p.3 #14What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
There really isn't that much difference, unless you crop a lot and have a pixel peeping fetish, like I do. My mark I did really well, and I wouldn't have upgraded, but it got destroyed.
Oct 09, 2011 at 11:06 AM
p.3 #15What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Agreed with Bobby. This lens has the most recent version of IS; it will recognize the situation if tripod is used. I would leave IS on all the time. And yes, you can switch the IS between mode I and mode II.
Oct 09, 2011 at 11:18 AM
p.3 #16What 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
yeah basically the 70-200 2.8 IS had worse performance than the other three 70-200s while the new Mark II has better performance than any of them (not that the old 2.8 IS was bad it just wasn't particularly amazing or anything) and I'd imagine the new one has better IS
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
yeah basically the 70-200 2.8 IS had worse performance than the other three 70-200s while the new Mark II has better performance than any of them (not that the old 2.8 IS was bad it just wasn't particularly amazing or anything) and I'd imagine the new one has better IS
Oct 09, 2011 at 11:56 AM
p.3 #17What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
snapsy wrote:
Here's a resolution chart comparison between the non IS and MK2, wide-open @ 200mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Judging from TDP the mkII @f/2.8 is sharper in the corners and midframe than the mkI @f/5.6
Here's a resolution chart comparison between the non IS and MK2, wide-open @ 200mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Judging from TDP the mkII @f/2.8 is sharper in the corners and midframe than the mkI @f/5.6
Oct 09, 2011 at 12:36 PM
p.3 #18What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Sharona wrote:
Well, again, I am over the moon to have this lens on the way. Hope I do it justice!
Well congratulations on a great purchase! You've been keeping us busy in your dreamy 135L topic and you've unleashed quite a discussion here. I'd be very interested to hear how you like your new lens and I'd also like to see some pictures!
All the best!
Ralph
Well, again, I am over the moon to have this lens on the way. Hope I do it justice!
Well congratulations on a great purchase! You've been keeping us busy in your dreamy 135L topic and you've unleashed quite a discussion here. I'd be very interested to hear how you like your new lens and I'd also like to see some pictures!
All the best!
Ralph
Oct 09, 2011 at 12:50 PM
p.3 #19What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Thanks all - Ralph, I had to come to my senses and realize that I needed the flexibility of the zoom. By most accounts it doesn't look like I am giving up too much by going with the zoom over the 135. (Except more $$$) Can't have it all!
Oct 09, 2011 at 01:14 PM
p.3 #20What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Sharona, by going with the 70-200L II you are actually getting 4 f2.8 prime lenses ... 85mm, 100mm, 135mm and 200mm ... plus a bonus 70mm lens. Those 4 primes will set you back a lot more, plus you lose the versatility of a zoom ... and if you use filters you will need several different-size filters.
Sharona wrote:
Thanks all - Ralph, I had to come to my senses and realize that I needed the flexibility of the zoom. By most accounts it doesn't look like I am giving up too much by going with the zoom over the 135. (Except more $$$) Can't have it all!
Sharona wrote:
Thanks all - Ralph, I had to come to my senses and realize that I needed the flexibility of the zoom. By most accounts it doesn't look like I am giving up too much by going with the zoom over the 135. (Except more $$$) Can't have it all!
Oct 09, 2011 at 02:02 PM