Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 06 Aug 2010 (Friday) 02:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Debating on 70-200 IS USM f/2.8L Mark I or II

 
BoneJj
Goldmember
1,269 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
     
Aug 06, 2010 02:18 |  #1

Like the title says.. I'm in a debate over waiting and spending the cash on a 70-200 IS USM f/2.8L mark I or II

While yes it's supposed to be a much better model but is it really all that much better than the mark I? Also there is the issue of the massive price difference between the 2 models.

Mark I = 1900 new
Mark II = 2300 new

400 is a lot of money and I'm curious as to whether or not the updates are really worth the 400 dollar price difference on the lens. What do you guys think? Has anyone on here had both and/or used both?

It's going to be a little while before I buy it though, I will need to sell my 91 MR2 first and I'll probably use the money from that to fund the new lens purchase. This way it's not money that I would of been missing as it is and I'll be saving money not paying for insurance on one less vehicle....


--Bone | FSS (external link) | flickr (external link) | Gear list (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jericobot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,128 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: preppingforthetrumpets
     
Aug 06, 2010 02:38 |  #2

MkI if tight budget, mkII if not, as always


α7ii + (batis 25 f2 / zeiss 55 f1,8 / macro 90 f2,8)
♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BoneJj
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,269 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
     
Aug 06, 2010 02:52 |  #3

Jericobot wrote in post #10671489 (external link)
MkI if tight budget, mkII if not, as always

yeah i get that but is the difference in model really worth the difference in price or is the difference in model only marginally better compared?


--Bone | FSS (external link) | flickr (external link) | Gear list (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ecub
Goldmember
1,487 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Southwest suburbs of Chicago
     
Aug 06, 2010 02:57 |  #4

True, $400 is allot of money, but since you're already spending at least $1900, an extra $400 isn't much when you think of it. Plus that extra $400 gives you better quality lens.


- Ed
Official Gear List
5D II | 7D | 16-35mm f/2.8L II | 24-70mm f/2.8L | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L | 50mm f/1.2L USM | 85mm f/1.2L II | 100mm f/2.8L IS macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DeVVitt
Senior Member
362 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: The Netherlands
     
Aug 06, 2010 03:23 |  #5

ecub wrote in post #10671543 (external link)
True, $400 is allot of money, but since you're already spending at least $1900, an extra $400 isn't much when you think of it. Plus that extra $400 gives you better quality lens.

I agree with ecub on this one. The Mk I is a very capable lens, but if you're buying new, the Mk II seems like a better investment to me.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrersa
Member
48 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Aug 06, 2010 03:30 as a reply to  @ BoneJj's post |  #6

I have the Mk1 for little under two years now and was dissappointed when the MkII was announced but I won't be upgrading as I am very happy with the lens and I can't justify loosing/spending money for an extra fstop of IS. Whatever choice you make you can't go wrong. Pro's have been using this lens forever and the new lens won't make the old model any worse than it was/is. Same as when the 24-70 f2.8 L IS is going to appear. My 24-70 won't be upgraded because it's just as fantastic. I'd rather add a nice prime lens to my gearlist.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SiaoP
Goldmember
Avatar
1,406 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
     
Aug 06, 2010 04:49 |  #7

For new I think the mk2 will be a better buy. Used, I would go for mk1 if you're tight on budget.


My Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Overread
Goldmember
Avatar
2,198 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Mar 2010
     
Aug 06, 2010 06:38 |  #8

Check that the Mk1 is actually in stock at that price - most retailers havn't actually got any stock of this lens anymore (its out of production). They put a high price on it though because it gets the searchers in from google and then they can suggest the Mk2 which is in stock and which is only a few 100 more for a fully upgraded lens.

The Mk1 market is now the second hand market where it retails for around its original as new price (ie before the Mk2 appeared).

And as said above I agree that the original lens was indeed a fantastic performer and able to deliver pro quality results through its entire focal range. Complaints of softness and of it not being "as sharp" as the f4 were often valid, but were pixel peeping and splitting at hairs rather than describing massive quality problems.
The Mk2 is the better lens there is no doubt about that but its high price means that it might not be for every ones budget. The only time I would really push someone to the Mk2 lens is if they want to use it with a 2*TC (about the only thing that the original did poorly) and even then there are cheaper alternatives that one can consider.


Tools of the trade: Canon 400D, Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS, Canon MPE 65mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, Tamron 24-70mm f2.4, Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6, Raynox DCR 250, loads of teleconverters and a flashy thingy too
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aaronmd
Member
101 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Stratford, Prince Edward Island
     
Aug 06, 2010 07:04 |  #9

BoneJj wrote in post #10671527 (external link)
yeah i get that but is the difference in model really worth the difference in price or is the difference in model only marginally better compared?

Faster/quiter AF and IS. Better sharpness wide open and far better contrast. If one is buying new the decision is easy. the MKII is the lens to get. For me the decision was easy. I am super anal about my images and IQ so it is easy to justify the extra $400 knowing that I will not have to spend that extra amount of time throughout the lenses life fixing this little issues.


www.aaronmacdougall.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Aug 06, 2010 07:42 |  #10

And then there is the second guessing... should I have bought the MKII.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cueball
Senior Member
Avatar
506 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 136
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Illinois
     
Aug 06, 2010 09:02 |  #11

I just picked up my Mark I a few months ago used off of FM. I am very happy with it so far but if I had been buying brand new I definitely would have splurged for the Mark II. I paid $1500 for my lens so I feel I got a good deal vs. paying $2300 for a new Mark II.


Canon: 5D Mark IV, EOS R, 35 f1.4L II, 85 f1.4L IS, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-70 f2.8L II, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II, 100 f2.8L IS Macro, 2X III, 1.4X III, 580EX II, 430EX
Feedback: https://photography-on-the.net …=12723614&postc​ount=27889, https://photography-on-the.net …=13303433&postc​ount=30051

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canon ­ Bob
Goldmember
2,058 posts
Likes: 51
Joined May 2007
Location: Poitou-Charentes, France
     
Aug 06, 2010 10:58 as a reply to  @ cueball's post |  #12

If you intend to use it for video at any time then go for the MkI (parfocal) otherwise I'd stump up the extra for the MkII (not parfocal).

Bob


1Dx2 (2), 5DSR, 1Ds3, 1D4, 5D2(590nm), 5D2(720nm) EF600 EF400 EF300-II EF300 EF200 EF200-II EF180L EF135L EF100 EF85-II EF50L TS-E17/4 TS-E24L-II TS-E45 TS-E90 MP-E65 EF70-200-II EF24-70/2.8-II EF16-35/4 EF8-15/4 EF11-24/4 Zeiss 15/2.8 21/2.8 25/2 28/2 35/1.4 35/2 50/2 85/1.4 100/2 135/2 T/C's L-SC & a WIFE!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikejet
Senior Member
573 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: West Covina
     
Aug 06, 2010 11:00 |  #13

I got my like new 70-200 2.8 IS for $1400. I love it.

But if I had the money at the time to buy a mark II new I would have.


Gear: S95 - Canon 50D - Canon 50mm 1.4 - BG-E2N Grip - R4 Rstrap - 200DG
molitrato.com (external link)
My flickr! (external link)
My feedback!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ben_r_
-POTN's Three legged Support-
Avatar
15,894 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Aug 06, 2010 11:01 |  #14

Simple. If you can afford it, Mark II. If not, Mark I.


[Gear List | Flickr (external link) | My Reviews] /|\ Tripod Leg Protection (external link) /|\
GIVE a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BoneJj
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,269 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
     
Aug 06, 2010 12:19 |  #15

Canon Bob wrote in post #10673048 (external link)
If you intend to use it for video at any time then go for the MkI (parfocal) otherwise I'd stump up the extra for the MkII (not parfocal).

Bob

That's pretty cool, I didn't know about that fact. That could be useful for both video and general shooting as well for the way I find myself shooting a lot.

I do tend to do video from time to time of friends and family gatherings and all. I wouldn't mind doing some more video but right now my kit lens just doesn't do all that well for that.... The 70-300 is usm that I have is pretty good for video but I really need to move to the f/2.8 and I need the IS for the motion shots that I do at the race track and so on.

I get some really nice shots with it as it is now but I could really use the 2.8 to set the subjects apart more from the rest.

I'm kind of leaning to the mark I at this point. It would be nice to save a few bucks and then buy some other gear like more strobes and such.


--Bone | FSS (external link) | flickr (external link) | Gear list (external link) |

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

7,716 views & 0 likes for this thread
Debating on 70-200 IS USM f/2.8L Mark I or II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is CoolGuy5Million
1134 guests, 297 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.