V1 was soft at 200mm, at least my copy was. V2 is considerably sharper throughout the range, but at 200mm in particular. V3 is like V2 but I believe there are special coatings on the lens to help minimize flair, CA, etc.
Jim
The lens generally get sharper and render contrast better as a new version is released. I saw improvement when I upgraded my ISvI to ISvII lens and will stick with it as long as I own my 5DIV's.
I believe the only major difference between II and III we coatings to some lens elements, i will be keeping my II long into the future as it works extremely well on all my R bodies. Incredibly well!
70-200/4
70-200/4 IS
70-200/4 IS II
70-200/2.8
70-200/2.8 IS
70-200/2.8 IS II
70-200/2.8 IS III
Which do you mean by "I, II, and III."
EBH
Only the f/2.8 IS has 3 versions so I assume they mean the three f/2.8 IS versions. Wide open at f/2.8 the f/2.8 IS is probably the least sharp of all 7 versions.
As far as 2.8 IS versions, I believe opticallimits said v1 not too great at 2.8. Roger Cicala of Lensrentals did a teardown of v2 and v3 and didn't really think enough to warrant a v3. Coatings might be easier to clean but more fragile on v3.
Yes, the original f/2.8 IS was a letdown, worse in some ways than the f/2.8 (~1995).
I had all of those lenses except the EF f/2.8 IS III. The IS II and the IS III appear to be the same optically, but only the IS III is still in service. On a budget I would probably buy a used f/4 IS and/or f/2.8 IS II, but they should be checked for copy variation.
EB-1 wrote:
Yes, the original f/2.8 IS was a letdown, worse in some ways than the f/2.8 (~1995).
I had all of those lenses except the EF f/2.8 IS III. The IS II and the IS III appear to be the same optically, but only the IS III is still in service. On a budget I would probably buy a used f/4 IS and/or f/2.8 IS II, but they should be checked for copy variation.
EBH
What did you think of older 80-200/2.8? Might be an option if one doesn't need IS
AmbientMike wrote:
What did you think of older 80-200/2.8? Might be an option if one doesn't need IS
If you don’t need IS, get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 (non-IS). It is a great lens that was in continuous production from 1995 until very recently. You can still buy one brand new, in the box, or get a good deal on a used one.
The old EF 80-200mm f/2.8 is a good lens but the old Arc Form AF is nothing like USM, and it might be hard to find someone to repair it these days.
Mike_5D wrote:
I think the v3 was created to depress the value of my v2 without any actual photographic improvement.
Or to be able to officially drop support for the vast number of v2 in use currently. According to this Canon support page v2 support will end by July 2025.
macentropist wrote:
I believe the only major difference between II and III we coatings to some lens elements, i will be keeping my II long into the future as it works extremely well on all my R bodies. Incredibly well!
FWIW, I recently had the chance to use the EF v3, RF 2.8 and f/4 versions over the same timeframe. IMO the EF v3 was not as sharp as I expected at 200mm and looked slightly lower contrast than the RF versions. But that was at pixel peeping magnifications. These were all from CPS and it's possible the EF may have been a less optimal copy (don't know how it has been used/abused), but my impression is the difference was about the same as what you can see in the image quality comparison by The Digital Picture (here).
The biggest difference though for me was the massive weight reduction of the RF versions which made both so much nicer to use than their EF versions (I have owned the EF 70-200/4L IS v1 since release in preference to the f/2.8 versions). For me at least, the loss of TC compatibility with the RF versions is not a dealbreaker.
AmbientMike wrote:
What did you think of older 80-200/2.8? Might be an option if one doesn't need IS
This lens had a bit of a cult following here at FM perhaps in part due to member PetKal? I had it and replaced it with the 70-200/2.8 non-IS as soon as it was available for the faster AF and TC compatibility (which back in the film days was useful and because my next lens longer than 200 was 400).
The 80-200/2.8 was known for the borkah and it was not the sharpest from center to corner. AF was old-school, but better than the shaft-drive 80-200/2.8 Nikkors of the era.
I've had the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS v1 and v2. My experiences are identical to jgoetz4 and jcolwell...if you can, get a v2. It's consistently sharp through the focal range, whereas my v1 had a sweet spot around 90-130mm.
v2 with a 1.4x II is actually usable, albeit not fantastic. v1 with the same 1.4x II was brutal. Soft and slow to focus.
AmbientMike wrote:
What did you think of older 80-200/2.8? Might be an option if one doesn't need IS
Interesting, someone on set was just talking about that lens and now I want to try it. Its from the same release as the 20-35 2.8, which I like for some weird reason.
EB-1 wrote:
The 80-200/2.8 was known for the borkah and it was not the sharpest from center to corner. AF was old-school, but better than the shaft-drive 80-200/2.8 Nikkors of the era.
EBH
My 80-200 f/2.8 was sharp for me. Of course, I only used it on 6 and 8 megapixel APS-C DSLRs, so I have no idea whether that holds up on a modern high resolution sensor. I'd imagine you are likely correct that it isn't blistering compared to modern optics.
I loved that lens. Great lens, though heavy and if buying today: a risk since they are now VERY old and no longer servicable by Canon.
In my experience, there was a huge difference between V1 and V2. I hated my V1. The V2 sharpness and AF reliability were significantly better. I still shoot with it today. Eventually, I will get the RF version as I switch to mirrorless but not because the V2 lets me down.
I was never really pleased with the sharpness or lack thereof of my V1, even after focus calibration by Canon. However, my V2 more than makes up for it; it's razor sharp and I have no plans to get rid of it, even though I also own an R3. I prefer its internal zoom capabilities over the extendable R70-200mm f/2.8.
