p.5 #1 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Okey doke. So the focus seems to hunt some. I imagine there is somewhat of a learning curve to make the most of this lens? (I just went into the backyard this evening to mess around.) Seems like when I'm trying for objects closer in distance, the focus goes back and forth. Just seeking some input - again!
p.5 #2 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Sharona wrote:
Okey doke. So the focus seems to hunt some. I imagine there is somewhat of a learning curve to make the most of this lens? (I just went into the backyard this evening to mess around.) Seems like when I'm trying for objects closer in distance, the focus goes back and forth. Just seeking some input - again!
p.5 #3 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Hi Sharon,
Focus shouldn't hunt on the mkII zoom. At least mine doesn't and I haven't heard it from others. How close are you focusing? Did you try both of your cameras? Which AF settings did you use? With so many excellent reports of this lens, including my own experience, I would say this is substandard behaviour. I'd say try the following steps:
1. use it in daytime, point it at some contrasty objects, OneShot AF, IS on, mode 1. If this is good,
2. try AI Servo, if this is good,
3. try focusing on less contrasty objects, if this is good,
4. take it inside and try some contrasty and not so contrasty objects.
I just checked mine on my 5D classic. It's completely dark outside, I'm in my living room with a soft bulb switched on. I get 1/80th, f/2.8 @ISO3200. Absolutely no problem for my lens.
If your lens fails on 1, 2 and 3, send it back immediately. If it fails on 4, check your camera. Put on your 200/2.8 and see if it focuses better. If it does, send back the lens immediately.
p.5 #6 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Checked before leaving this morning, and yes, the focus limiter was set correctly. I was shooting at frilly things in the garden, and it seemed to want to focus on the stems/plants behind the one I was aiming for. Perhaps I was just too close. I really should play with the lens a bit more before I start asking questions..... but the "hunting" behavior was troubling. This weekend I'll take it out to a park and shoot some geese. That will be a better test, I think.
BTW: I almost always have it set at AI Servo - because I'm usually shooting wildlife.
p.5 #7 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
I usually don't want to insult people and ask the basics, but did you check your focus point selection settings? To rule this out select center point only and see if the lens focuses as it should. Good luck.
p.5 #8 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Not insulted at all. I am the first to admit that I need to practice with my focus points. I'll get back to you all once I can get out and shoot properly with the lens. I wasn't joking before - I'm a little afraid of taking it outside, getting it dirty, etc... lol!
p.5 #13 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Great images, great sharpness. Looks like the 1.4III is my next purchase, right after the 35L.
Mind if I ask you some tech questions?
From exif, I read you used ISO320, and you shot wide open @280mm. Still I see some noise in the leaves. For a 1DsII that is not common, so you either boosted exposure and/or you cropped a lot. Could you explain? I'm asking because I'm very interested in the 1.4x to use with my 70-200mkII.
p.5 #14 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Great shots that illustrate perfectly well what the mk II has that the mk I hasn't.
I work both and would characterise the mk II in comparison to the mkI as:
- significantly enhanced micro contrast, especially between 2.8 and 3.5
- higher macro contrast, especially in the midtones
- more saturated greens and blues
- way less prone to flare
- better IS (I take 1/5 as the bottom speed for handheld, where I take 1/15 for the mkI)
- significantly better performance with mk III converters
- faster AF especially noticeable with converters
This may sound like the mkII is a better lens all the way. To my taste it's not. I have always liked my mkI as one of my best zoomlenses. It was in fact a dealmaker for choosing the Canon system 10 years back. And here are the characteristics what I still like about the mk I:
- very nice contrast with "open mid tones" that only a few other lenses have (85L, 24-70L,
- fits perfectly well to contrast and colour balance of the 85/1.2L and the 24-70L
- very nice magentas and rendering of orange and browns that fit very well to skin tones
- really fast AF (fast enough for sports photography). The mkI has never been slow and is still among the fastest focussing lenses in my bag
- 3d conversion that is great for portraits, I prefer bokeh and sharpness to out of focus field transition over the mk II.
These characteristics make the mkI my preferred lens for portraiture and fashion. If I need a compact tele solution with the converters though I take the mkII, just like in difficult light situations where flare could be the enemy. My standard effective opening for the mk I is 3.2, because it performs noticeable better from that point than at 2.8. But in many occasions shooting senior portraits wide open 2.8 works better, as if I use a soft focus filter built in I also find I do less postprocessing with the mkI, especially for portraits to correct colour balance and contrast. That is because of the colour rendering and it's open midtones. I still can't balance mkII shots for portraiture like I want it to be.
If I had to summarize the character of the mkII in comparison to other lenses in Canon's L class, I would say it's an 70-200/4.0L IS lens with a one stop faster opening. In terms of contrast, colour rendition and 3d-to-2d conversion these lenses are very similar.
Look at Rich his contributions: high contrast photo's with detailed highlights and a very high micro contrast. Dark midtones and shadows do not reveal lots of detail. This is especially visible in the animal sleeping on the tree shot. The characteristic of the mkII helps to give saturated colours and "pop" (especially in the tiger shot) but for portraiture this kind of character is too often too harsh (that is for my taste) if you get what I mean. This is not criticize Rich's great photo's I think they illustrate very well why the mkII is a great lens (especially since these are taken with the converters!), but I try to get your attention for characteristics that can be seen in these particular shots as well, that do not fit every kind of photo.
I had this experience since day 1 of the mkII. I first thought this was a matter of habits and getting used to the new lens. But after a few months now I have to conclude for my personal use: the mkII is a great lens but it's not my type of allround midtelezoom. I find it just too harsh too often. Sure it's a better optical instrument for those who want just "sharpness". It's also the better lens if you want a cost effective long tele solution with extenders.
But those who own the mkI should make a comparison if it's worth to upgrade. Rent the lens. If you are the kind of sharpness phanatic photographer it's probably your lens anyway. But there might be a chance that you like the mkI more, just like me. If you are new in the market for a mkI and you have a passion for portraiture and photography where subtle contrast rendering in midtones fits to your photographic style than the mk I might be a better solution for you and does save you the budget for another great piece of glass.
A lot of words, but I thought I'd take the time to nuance the mkII hurray even though I may be the only one. I find the forum boards have a bit of a bias too much to sharpness, while there are other discriminating lens characteristics as well that too often don't get mentioned.
The mkII has a lot to offer that the mkI doesn't have. But there is a few things that the mkI has, that the mkII doesn'tn have as well.
I hope sharing my experience with 70-200/2.8L mkI and mkII lenses do help in making buying decisions and having your own kind of EOSfun
p.5 #15 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
rabbitmountain wrote:
Great images, great sharpness. Looks like the 1.4III is my next purchase, right after the 35L.
Mind if I ask you some tech questions?
From exif, I read you used ISO320, and you shot wide open @280mm. Still I see some noise in the leaves. For a 1DsII that is not common, so you either boosted exposure and/or you cropped a lot. Could you explain? I'm asking because I'm very interested in the 1.4x to use with my 70-200mkII.
Thanks
It was very dark . I actually under exposed the shot alot. I should have gone higher on the ISO and it would have had less noise. It was a 1/45 sec. I was handholding and standing on my tiptoes..........
p.5 #16 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Well articulated, eosfun. I don't have any experience with the Mk I so I am not able to comment on the differences. I think the biggest plus with the Mk II is the sharpness across the focal length, even wide open ... and this cannot be overstated. The big advantage of this is that you can pair it up with the 1.4x and even the 2x without sacrificing too much sharpness and detail, so it's a worthy replacement of the 100-400L to me .... but YMMV.
eosfun wrote:
A lot of words, but I thought I'd take the time to nuance the mkII hurray even though I may be the only one. I find the forum boards have a bit of a bias too much to sharpness, while there are other discriminating lens characteristics as well that too often don't get mentioned.
p.5 #17 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
eosfun wrote:
The mkII has a lot to offer that the mkI doesn't have. But there is a few things that the mkI has, that the mkII doesn'tn have as well.
I hope sharing my experience with 70-200/2.8L mkI and mkII lenses do help in making buying decisions and having your own kind of EOSfun
I do not quite follow your essay on MkI-MkII differences.
In my experience MkII is a better lens than MkI I used to own in all aspects of performance that I can observe.
(I also suspect that Nikon photographers are having less NikkorFun since the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII was introduced......the new zoom shines brightly into their darkness and becons them to switch to the light. )
If you care to post some images which would illustrate your findings that would be a good start.
p.5 #20 · What does the 70-200f2.8 mkII have that the MkI doesn't?
Nice images! And to see that Tanglefoot has no desire to sell this lens.... that says a lot. Although that was a few months ago, so he may have sold it by now!
Just be careful to put good light through it. Bad light will break it to pieces....
I think they illustrate very well why the mkII is a great lens (especially since these are taken with the converters!), but I try to get your attention for characteristics that can be seen in these particular shots as well, that do not fit every kind of photo.