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

Whoa, whats this now? I know very little about video. Why is the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark I better for it?

ben_r_ wrote in post #10673552
Whoa, whats this now? I know very little about video. Why is the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark I better for it?

It's parfocal....ie, the focus doesn't change as you zoom in or out.....a useful feature for video and I doubt that the resolution of video will show the difference between the MkI and MKII

Bob

BoneJj wrote in post #10673458
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.

If you are leaning toward saving money for other stuff and buying mk I, then go for it. It is still a great lens. I sold my six month old mk I for $1650 a few months ago. If you buy one at similar condition and price. You still get about 8 months of warranty and save even more.

This has temporarilty replaced the 24-70 vs 24-105 debate. Get the MK2 if you can aford it. It's a better lens that will produce better pictures given the same user.

I don't think either the 70-200mm 2.8 IS or the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II are Parfocal. They both have exactly the same warning about zooming in the manual:

If you're going to be shooting a lot at f/2.8, get the MkII version because it's a lot sharper than the first version at f/2.8. But if you think you'll rarely, or never be shooting at f/2.8, get the 70-200 f/4L IS instead. It's amazingly sharp at f/4 and cheaper than the original 2.8L IS version. I'd pass on the original 2.8L IS. Every copy I've ever tried (rented, owned, or borrowed) was really soft at f/2.8 and a big disappointment.

jayadeff wrote in post #10674270
If you're going to be shooting a lot at f/2.8, get the MkII version because it's a lot sharper than the first version at f/2.8. But if you think you'll rarely, or never be shooting at f/2.8, get the 70-200 f/4L IS instead. It's amazingly sharp at f/4 and cheaper than the original 2.8L IS version. I'd pass on the original 2.8L IS. Every copy I've ever tried (rented, owned, or borrowed) was really soft at f/2.8 and a big disappointment.

yeah, 2.8 is my target f-stop, so yeah I might just have to spend the outrageous amount and get the mark II.

Kind of sucks but I guess I'll just have to work with it.

BoneJj wrote in post #10671527
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?

The mk2 is well worth the extra.

jayadeff wrote in post #10674270
If you're going to be shooting a lot at f/2.8, get the MkII version because it's a lot sharper than the first version at f/2.8. But if you think you'll rarely, or never be shooting at f/2.8, get the 70-200 f/4L IS instead. It's amazingly sharp at f/4 and cheaper than the original 2.8L IS version. I'd pass on the original 2.8L IS. Every copy I've ever tried (rented, owned, or borrowed) was really soft at f/2.8 and a big disappointment.

+1

also, if you are willing to spend $1900 on a lens, might as well pony up $400 more for the mk2

Daedalus34r wrote in post #10687413
+1

also, if you are willing to spend $1900 on a lens, might as well pony up $400 more for the mk2

yeah, now i just need to sell my extra car so that I can get the lens.... lol

anyone in southwest florida want to buy a 91 toyota mr2 with the t-tops and manual trans? lol

Have you considered the band new Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM for Canon ? ($1699 at B&H).

This thing, announced in February, just became available last week. It is so new that I have not been able to find any hands on reviews yet.

Given the $1700 price for a Sigma, Sigma Marketing would be absolute morons if their own internal tests did not show that this lens clearly outperforms the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. In fact, I suspect it will come very close (or exceed) the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.

I am planning on buying a 70-200 f/2.8 in the next few weeks. I am waiting to see some reviews and images from this lens before making my final decision.

hairy_moth wrote in post #10687993
Have you considered the band new Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM for Canon ? ($1699 at B&H).

This thing, announced in February, just became available last week. It is so new that I have not been able to find any hands on reviews yet.

Given the $1700 price for a Sigma, Sigma Marketing would be absolute morons if their own internal tests did not show that this lens clearly outperforms the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. In fact, I suspect it will come very close (or exceed) the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.

my concern here is the quality control though. I have the sigma dirty 30, and I'm still in the process of sending it back and forth to get it fixed so my fast end is actually focusing right.. right now it's quite a bit off.

mark II is the right choice. I am amazed by sharpness of the pictures it took. My mk I was a good copy tho I don't think it's sharper, faster nor had better color/contrast than my old minolta 70-200G ssm @ 2.8.

But MkII is just better and best in everything. Period. For $400 more, the difference is just 20%. I would say it's well worth every penny.

Both are great lenses. I'm very happy with my Mk I.

AxxisPhoto wrote in post #10694691
Both are great lenses. I'm very happy with my Mk I.

I agree, I had a mk1 for 5 years and loved it, the mk1 is a great lens and the mk2 is a stunning lens.