I know I don't know what I am talking about, but I got this within 30 minutes of unboxing the 70-200/2.8-II:
http://files.me.com/stanj/80plwb
(1Ds3 raw file. I know the focal plane is a few mm in front of his eyes, too bad, didn't do MA yet)
Then I proceeded to look thru my "picks" of the 1Ds3 / 70-200/2.8LIS combination, and I could not find anything that looked remotely the same. I had to go back all the way to 2003 on the 1Ds with half as many pixels and a much different AA filter to get the same "look". Or I can look at my 200/2 for the same look (albeit less blur, naturally).
You form your own opinions based on your own experiences, I am keeping mine. I am also keeping my 200/2, of course, but chances are it will see less use now.
stanj wrote:
You form your own opinions based on your own experiences, I am keeping mine. I am also keeping my 200/2, of course, but chances are it will see less use now.
Mine is on the way, with delivery scheduled for Tuesday. It is going to be a tough weekend :-)
stanj wrote:
I know I don't know what I am talking about, but I got this within 30 minutes of unboxing the 70-200/2.8-II:
http://files.me.com/stanj/80plwb
(1Ds3 raw file. I know the focal plane is a few mm in front of his eyes, too bad, didn't do MA yet)
Then I proceeded to look thru my "picks" of the 1Ds3 / 70-200/2.8LIS combination, and I could not find anything that looked remotely the same. I had to go back all the way to 2003 on the 1Ds with half as many pixels and a much different AA filter to get the same "look". Or I can look at my 200/2 for the same look (albeit less blur, naturally).
You form your own opinions based on your own experiences, I am keeping mine. I am also keeping my 200/2, of course, but chances are it will see less use now....Show more →
garyvot wrote:
Could this be the lens that finally bests the legendary drainage pipe?
WOW...This is nearly to the point of blasphemy...Almost as bad as this...But, It may actually convince me even to save for a used one when they start coming to a respectable price...
reno.peterson wrote:
WOW...This is nearly to the point of blasphemy...Almost as bad as this...But, It may actually convince me even to save for a used one when they start coming to a respectable price...
Reno, please let us not depart from our chosen true faith......... the Pipe rules.
If we need another Pipe photo thread in order to sustain and invigorate our faith, that can be arranged easily.
After viewing several sites, reading multiple threads and viewing plenty of image samples, I am considering selling my 70-200 F4 IS and possibly my 135 F2 and getting the new 70-200 2.8 IS II. I briefly had the 70-200 2.8 IS but found the images soft wide open at 200mm and I was also disappointed with the lens' contrast (tried two copies with similar results). The F4 IS has outstanding contrast and is razor sharp, but at times is simply not fast enough. I added the 135 F2 and have been happy so far, but this new 70-200 2.8 IS II has me thinking that an upgrade may be in my future. I could sell both the 70-200 F4 IS and the 135 F2 and get the new 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I would lose 1 stop which is very useful for indoor sports and subject isolation. Of course I could always keep the 135 F2 and just upgrade the 70-200 F4 IS. That 135 F2 produces some magical images and has blazing fast autofocus. Anybody else have these lenses and considering this swap?
I'm considering the exact same thing. I don't use the 135 all that much (but it's great) and I often use it with a 1.4 TC so that effectively turns it into a 200 f/2.8. So-o-o-o if this puppy is as sharp as the 135 then I'm looking to change to it. The MkI just didn't do it for me and I found the f/4 IS to be better.
I used to be iffy about the weight, but I don't think that is a real issue anymore especially since I use the Cotton Carrier for the applications where I have to carry it a long time and that seems to make it much more comfortable than with a strap.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Seems like CA control is good. How would you rate it against the 200L. I know I can try to make it exhibit CA but mostly I would fail.
Not looking to replace the 200L.
Note that I am new to both. The blur of the 200/2 is naturally quite something else. It's also much harder to handle, bigger, heavier, less flexible - not surprising I guess. And there's the price. But all that aside - if I am purely after the look, f2. For everything else, the new zoom.
The 70-200LIS was the least used lens in my closet. I found it almost as frustrating as the 50L, and less useful. This lens may change it.
JohnJ80 wrote:
I'm considering the exact same thing. I don't use the 135 all that much (but it's great) and I often use it with a 1.4 TC so that effectively turns it into a 200 f/2.8. So-o-o-o if this puppy is as sharp as the 135 then I'm looking to change to it. The MkI just didn't do it for me and I found the f/4 IS to be better.
I used to be iffy about the weight, but I don't think that is a real issue anymore especially since I use the Cotton Carrier for the applications where I have to carry it a long time and that seems to make it much more comfortable than with a strap.
Looking at http://the-digital-picture.com and comparing the 70-200 2.8 IS II to the 70-200 F4 IS at F4 it appears the 2.8 IS II is sharper at 135 and 200 but not 70. Comparing the 70-200 2.8 IS II to the 135 F2 at 2.8 shows the 2.8 IS II is not too far behind the 135 F2 which is really saying something.
stanj wrote:
Note that I am new to both. The blur of the 200/2 is naturally quite something else. It's also much harder to handle, bigger, heavier, less flexible - not surprising I guess. And there's the price. But all that aside - if I am purely after the look, f2. For everything else, the new zoom.
The 70-200LIS was the least used lens in my closet. I found it almost as frustrating as the 50L, and less useful. This lens may change it.
Oh, and the zoom has less CA.
I'm pretty happy with my MKI, but the MKII is looking like a winner. f2.8 version of the f4 IS.
Really? The zoom has less CA than the 200L? I find that impossible to believe. I can't get CA on the 200L even if I tried!
Jason Stein wrote:
[Looking at http://the-digital-picture.com and comparing the 70-200 2.8 IS II to the 70-200 F4 IS at F4 it appears the 2.8 IS II is sharper at 135 and 200 but not 70. Comparing the 70-200 2.8 IS II to the 135 F2 at 2.8 shows the 2.8 IS II is not too far behind the 135 F2 which is really saying something.
I am not seeing the difference, or if there is, it's minuscule...in other words it's impressive given the f4 IS is an impressive lens as well!
I used the mk1 and now the have the mk2. I just looked at the same site's comparision tool between the two models at f/2.8 from 70mm to 135mm to 200mm and the resolution difference is easily noticable, in favor every time for the new model.
The biggest difference aside from what it can reproduce colors/contrast/sharpnest is the AF speed and motor noise. The hit/miss ratio on the new mk II is far more consistant than mk I on my 1dmk3 body. Sure the mk I image can still look stunning when it is in focus.. I think that has been the major complaints about the mk I is not sharp where it often mis-focused.
The AF speed feels twice as fast as the mk I version and the focus lock is almost instant in low light vs the mk I version. In IS mode on, it is far quieter than mk I that you can hardly hear the IS motor noise.
with F4 IS, you will be sidelined in low light. Sure the F4 IS is impressive if you're shooting outdoors. Sure the new mk II is impressive but it is still no match for 200 F2 IS. You can compare all you want but most importantly is what fits your shooting style and budget.
For the action shooters who needs the flexible range, just the AF along is worth the extra $$$.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
I am not seeing the difference, or if there is, it's minuscule...in other words it's impressive given the f4 IS is an impressive lens as well!
