comotionfilms wrote:
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.
Might not be too expensiveto try lately, I think the pop photo test OK. Might be able to find one at the local library if they still archive pop photo. Might be pretty decent, actually . Pretty positive review :
The 70-200 2.8 II and III are said to be identical, except for a spec change on the coatings. A buddy of mine and I found that while researching something previously. There was a short life on the II compared to other iterations, IIRC, and it was because the original coatings were not available anymore. Or so it is said.
I think I've owned every single version of all the EF 70-200's except the 2.8 IS III - the f/4 IS and NON, the 2.8 NON IS, the 2.8 IS and the 2.8 IS II and the clear winner without a doubt is the 2.8 II, both sharper and more contrasty especially wide open but also stopped down than either the 2.8 IS v1 or the 2.8 NON IS, which was slightly better than the first IS version. I kept the f/4 IS as well for both a travel/hiking lens but also as a never needed backup to the 2.8 II. The 2.8 II really shines on high mp cameras that test the lenses limits, with very good and fast autofocus and works great with the 1.4X as well. I'd have to say I that when I was shooting Canon exclusively the 2.8 II was by far my most used lens and it never once let me down.
I have the 70-200f/2.8 II, and III. I traded my ver1.2 for it. I found that there was little if any difference that a few ACR/Bridge could not fix. I shoot raw 100%.
I think it is is a wonderful lens. Maybe the best zoom in Canon's line up. I also prefer ver II.
Dan
Maybe it comes down to copy to copy variances but my copy of V3 was better than V2. Neither was as sharp as my copy of the Sigma sport though, not even the RF I compared it to! Of course the RF has other benefits (and shortcomings as well)
