Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 25 Apr 2010 (Sunday) 20:44
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Getting ready to buy 70-200/2.8 IS L but Mark I or Mark II

 
nonick
Goldmember
1,587 posts
Joined Jun 2009
NYC
Apr 25, 2010 20:44 |  #1

Hi everyone,

I am ready to buy the mid-tele zoom but not sure which one. I owned the Mark I before and mainly used it on 5D for wedding, portrait, animals and landscape. I like the lens for the purposes. My Mark I performed well and sharp in general. Wide-open sharpness is okay tho it's not the best 70-200/2.8 lens I had used. Some PP sharpening took care most of the slight f/2.8 softness issues with that lens. I paid about $1400 for it. I have sold it together with my 5D couple years ago.

For those of you who upgraded from 70-200/2.8L IS Mark I to Mark II version, how many of you think the upgrade really worth the extra $1000? I will use it on 7D for the same purpose I used it before, i.e. wedding, animals, portrait and landscape.

But given the big jump of the price tag, any of you upgraders think the Mark I just presents a bigger overall value than the mark II even with the improved sharpness, color and IS performance?

I am also considering to get the 70-200/4 L IS instead of the f/2.8 L IS Mark I for it's color and IS. Any f/2.8 L IS owner also owns the f/4 L IS version and like the f/4 L IS better?

Any thought willbe greatly apreciated!!!

sigh...which one I should get?

Thanks for your help...


Gear|Searching for 7DII, Buying 5DIII 35L II, 24-70 2.8L IS

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Rigby470
Senior Member
Rigby470's Avatar
436 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Apr 25, 2010 21:05 |  #2

Good question! I'm waiting to read some of the answers you get.


5D Mark II

LOG IN TO REPLY
sinjans
Senior Member
sinjans's Avatar
659 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Newfoundland and Labrador
Apr 25, 2010 21:48 |  #3

I'm quite happy with my mk1 if thats any help




LOG IN TO REPLY
nonick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,587 posts
Joined Jun 2009
NYC
Apr 25, 2010 22:41 |  #4

sinjans wrote in post #10065098external link
I'm quite happy with my mk1 if thats any help

I was quite happy with the copy I had too. But I am actually looking for some comments from people with with Mark I and II... or f/2.8 L IS and f/4 L IS. Thanks for you comment.


Gear|Searching for 7DII, Buying 5DIII 35L II, 24-70 2.8L IS

LOG IN TO REPLY
jay ­ spec
Member
32 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Apr 25, 2010 22:58 |  #5

i think you're going to have to weigh the differences between the 3 options. you already have experience shooting with the mk1 and that seems to have worked assuming PP is always a part of your process. will you be ok with a f/4 aperture? if so, that might be the better choice between it and the mk1. the mk2 is really the best of both worlds, but you have to pay to play...so whether or not the $1000 difference is worth it to you is something only you would know.

i have shot with both the mk1 and mk2 and personally, the $1000 would not be worth it to me, as i do not shoot mainly in the 70-200 range. the mk1 produces good results and the difference is lessened moreso when you consider PP in the equation as well...but that's just me. if you were to ask me the same question regarding a 24-70 mk2 when it's out, my answer would probably be different ;)




LOG IN TO REPLY
nonick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,587 posts
Joined Jun 2009
NYC
Apr 25, 2010 23:18 |  #6

jay spec wrote in post #10065442external link
i think you're going to have to weigh the differences between the 3 options. you already have experience shooting with the mk1 and that seems to have worked assuming PP is always a part of your process. will you be ok with a f/4 aperture? if so, that might be the better choice between it and the mk1. the mk2 is really the best of both worlds, but you have to pay to play...so whether or not the $1000 difference is worth it to you is something only you would know.

i have shot with both the mk1 and mk2 and personally, the $1000 would not be worth it to me, as i do not shoot mainly in the 70-200 range. the mk1 produces good results and the difference is lessened moreso when you consider PP in the equation as well...but that's just me. if you were to ask me the same question regarding a 24-70 mk2 when it's out, my answer would probably be different ;)

Good to hear from someone with some experience on both Mark I and Mark II. Thanks for your opinion.

How about some words from those who are using 70-200mm range more often?


Gear|Searching for 7DII, Buying 5DIII 35L II, 24-70 2.8L IS

LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
jdizzle's Avatar
69,419 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Harvesting Nano crystals
Apr 26, 2010 01:35 |  #7

The upgrade to the MK II is totally worth it. I had a good copy of the MK I and I never had issues with it.
Once, I upgrade to the MK II the IQ is much improved and 4 stop IS is a dream. Here's some images from my zenfolio gallery. All shot with the 1Ds MK III and 70-200 MK II. Enjoy!:)
http://dlimaging.zenfo​lio.com/p731909028external link




LOG IN TO REPLY
BucketMan
Senior Member
BucketMan's Avatar
936 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Roanoke, VA
Apr 26, 2010 07:38 as a reply to jdizzle's post |  #8

I too owned the Mark I and now have the II. Although I really did not get to use the Mark I as much as I wanted to I was very happy with its performance and loved that lens. The Mark II is even more amazing. Colors seems to be more accurate, the 4 stop IS is great and with the rounded aperture blades bokeh seems to be nicer as well.

Having said that, there are hundreds of better reviews by folks that are far more educated than me. However I see it this way. A camera lens is a tool for a trade. If you are a professional, which I gather from you doing wedding photography I would go with the Mark II. Yes, its a big hit to the bank account at first, but you will soon recover the cost and be very pleased with your purchase.

Good luck with your decision. If there are any test shots I could help you out with let me know.


| 70D | 70-200LII | 580EXIIhttp://photography-on-the.net/forum/%3Ca%20h​ref=
flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Savas ­ K
Goldmember
1,425 posts
Joined May 2007
Apr 26, 2010 07:44 |  #9

From the samples of MKII I have seen, there is no reason for me to upgrade, especially at the stiff premium Canon is charging.




LOG IN TO REPLY
ahendarman
Senior Member
ahendarman's Avatar
851 posts
Joined Sep 2008
SoCal
Apr 26, 2010 08:26 |  #10

I have a good copy of the f/4 IS and was thinking to upgrade to the f/2.8 II. I went to the local store to hold one. It feels a lot heavier and bigger so I decided that I simply wont use it as much and wont be able to bring it with me as much as the f/4 version. Maybe one day I'll get one when I actually need f/2.8, but now I stick with my f/4.
This thread in dpreviewexternal link also talked about this. I found it very enlightening.


Gear | Smugmugexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
TaDa
...as cool as Perry
TaDa's Avatar
6,742 posts
Joined Feb 2008
New York
Apr 26, 2010 08:34 |  #11

I think the upgrade is worth every penny, especially if you shoot on the long end a bunch


Name is Peter and here is my gear:
Canon 5D II, Canon 7D, Canon 40D
Glass - Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 40 f/2.8 STM, Canon 24-70 f/2.8
L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 500 f/4L IS
Speedlite 580ex II, 430ex - Gitzo GT-3541XLS w/ Arca B1

LOG IN TO REPLY
str8six
Senior Member
str8six's Avatar
672 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Calgary
Apr 26, 2010 08:43 |  #12

jdizzle wrote in post #10066002external link
The upgrade to the MK II is totally worth it. I had a good copy of the MK I and I never had issues with it.
Once, I upgrade to the MK II the IQ is much improved and 4 stop IS is a dream.

I had the same experience and agree with jdizzle completely. The MK II is so good, if I didn't need f2.0 for indoor sports, it could replace my 135 and 200 f2.0s. Totally worth the investment imho.


Regards, Len B
Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
jdizzle's Avatar
69,419 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Harvesting Nano crystals
Apr 26, 2010 08:51 |  #13

ahendarman wrote in post #10067038external link
I have a good copy of the f/4 IS and was thinking to upgrade to the f/2.8 II. I went to the local store to hold one. It feels a lot heavier and bigger so I decided that I simply wont use it as much and wont be able to bring it with me as much as the f/4 version. Maybe one day I'll get one when I actually need f/2.8, but now I stick with my f/4.
This thread in dpreviewexternal link also talked about this. I found it very enlightening.

He has some good points but, not everyone can justify this lens. It's expensive for sure. In comparison to the MK I and MK II, I noticed that the IS settles much quicker. Yes the f/4 IS is lighter and you can crank up the ISO but, do you really want to spend more time behind the PC removing noise? And if you expose incorrectly, the noise is more noticeable and trying to correct/recover is a pain. IS isn't the end all even if your subject is moving and how often are you going to shoot at shutter speeds of 1/15 sec? Probably not very often. :) If you're happy with what you have then keep it. Some just want the latest and greatest and the MK II is definitely great! The feature that won me over for the MK II is the IQ and it's easily justifiable to spend the money when I made my money back from it. :)




LOG IN TO REPLY
JelleVerherstraeten
Goldmember
JelleVerherstraeten's Avatar
2,440 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Antwerp, Belgium
Apr 26, 2010 09:57 |  #14

I waited to buy the MKI because of the rumours on the MKII. Now the MKII is there and I bought it and I'm very happy I did!


-Jelle l Gear l Website (external link) l

LOG IN TO REPLY
markol
Senior Member
841 posts
Joined Jun 2007
San Francisco
Apr 26, 2010 13:18 |  #15

Everyone loves the MKII, and if you have the funds there's no reason not to get it.


www.borrowlenses.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,685 views & 0 likes for this thread
Getting ready to buy 70-200/2.8 IS L but Mark I or Mark II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00387 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is comayjo
925 guests, 465 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016