To be honest, unless you buy used the mark II 2.8 is not much more than the mark I nowadays. Is it worth that much more than the f/4? To me it is but I shoot at 2.8 a lot for portraits. Only you can decide if you want the extra stop.
TuanTime Senior Member 759 posts Joined May 2009 More info | To be honest, unless you buy used the mark II 2.8 is not much more than the mark I nowadays. Is it worth that much more than the f/4? To me it is but I shoot at 2.8 a lot for portraits. Only you can decide if you want the extra stop.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Rabies Member 119 posts Joined Mar 2009 More info | Sep 16, 2010 19:53 | #17 I've had the f/4L IS for a couple of years, and I've just got a f/2.8 IS II. The f/4L IS was the sharpest lens I'd ever used (at the time) and is very close in IQ to the 2.8 II (I haven't had a chance to really put the new baby through its paces yet, though.) 7D | 40D | EF-S 10-22 | EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EF 1.4x II | S90 | full list
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AmbientMike Member 50 posts Joined May 2010 More info | Sep 16, 2010 20:39 | #18 If you want to shoot wildlife you might look at the 300/4 , is or not, non is looks to be better optically. Also 400/5.6 or 100-400. 200 is ok for wildlife, 300+ is better, although I do get some with shorter.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
friz Goldmember ![]() 1,595 posts Joined Oct 2008 More info | Sep 16, 2010 20:52 | #19 FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10923191 ![]() Oh, and the MFD is noticeably shorter with the MkII as well... That's almost worth it right there. I have a really good copy of a non IS and I find my self putting a tube in my pocket when I leave the house with it. Just in case. When my wife heals up from all the $ I spent on camera crap recently, I will probably go for the MkII
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bobfather Member 57 posts Joined Apr 2009 More info | FlyingPhotog wrote: One stop of physical aperture and about four stops worth of new IS goodness. I've seen sharp images from the MkII taken hand held at 200mm f/2.8 @ 1/8 of a second. I know two top aviation shooters who feel good enough about the MkII that they're willing to shoot air to air sessions without a gyro. The benefits run a wee bit deeper than "incremental." Again, you're mistaken.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Snydremark my very own Lightrules moment More info | Sep 16, 2010 21:14 | #21 bobfather wrote in post #10923907 ![]() Again, you're mistaken. As was said, the f4 IS has the same IS system as the f2.8 IS II. Also, I have (very) sharp pictures taken at 200 mm at 1/10s with the f4 IS. Secondly, I encourage you to take a look at Canon's own MTF charts for both lenses. You'll see that Canon admits they have at best only marginally increased the sharpness of the 2.8 II versus the 4 IS. Finally, MFD of both lenses are identical. While I agree the 2.8 II is a super upgrade on the 2.8 I, the 2.8 II honestly just buys you a stop of light versus the f4 IS. For some people that stop is absolutely necessary. I was able to buy an f4 IS for $740 on the used market, so I'll gladly take my $1500 discount over the 2.8 II. It may also have a 4 stop rated IS system, but the one in the f/4 lens is significantly older in design and I strongly suspect not as effective. Can't say for SURE without the two to compare side by side. - Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid ![]() More info | Sep 16, 2010 21:16 | #22 Kooper wrote in post #10923115 ![]() Would want to use it when walking about and want to take a picture of subjects I can't approach, probably wildlife on trails while walking. 200mm won't cut it for anything wild...so you might as well factor in the costs of some teleconverters...or buy the right lens for the job in the first place... Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apollo.11 Goldmember ![]() 1,845 posts Joined Oct 2009 Location: Dallas, TX More info | Sep 16, 2010 21:22 | #23 When I was upgrading from my sigma, the 2.8 II was way out of my budget.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
huntersdad Goldmember 4,823 posts Likes: 546 Joined Nov 2008 More info | I bought the Mii about 3 weeks ago and now have it for sale - preferably for the f/4 IS. For wildlife, the stop buys you a couple minutes in the morning and a couple in the evening. It is also way to short for wildlife and a little on the heavy side for a walkaround. Facebook
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CountryBoy "Tired of Goldmember label" ![]() 5,168 posts Joined May 2006 Location: Okie More info | Sep 16, 2010 22:12 | #25 DreDaze wrote in post #10923928 ![]() 200mm won't cut it for anything wild...so you might as well factor in the costs of some teleconverters...or buy the right lens for the job in the first place... I agree ! Hi
LOG IN TO REPLY |
rx7speed Goldmember 1,204 posts Joined Jun 2008 More info | Sep 17, 2010 00:08 | #26 though couldn't he cut double duty with this lens running it either with a 1.4 or a 2x convertor to get a little more versitility out of the lens though granted at a little bit of light loss? digital: 7d 70-200L 2.8 IS MKII, 17-55 2.8 IS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 17, 2010 00:20 | #27 Kooper wrote in post #10923047 ![]() Hi everyone, I really want to pick up the 70-200mm IS II, but the cost of a little over 2K is just so much. Would it really be much of a sacrifice to go for a different lens? What would be the most comparable at that range, and would it even come close IQ wise, ect.? What would be the best value at that 70-200 area? Just trying to ask a bit. If the IS II really is just that good I would be willing to drop the money for it. But if it's just slightly better than something it may be very much worth the sacrifice to save money towards more lenses. Problem is I have no experience with the lens itself or other lenses in that area, so I just would like to get some opinions on what direction I should take. Thanks everyone!
https://www.instagram.com/nd14411
LOG IN TO REPLY |
malla1962 Cream of the Crop ![]() 7,714 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jul 2004 Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk More info | The mk2 is light years ahead of the rest, it even handles TC's very well.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
johnny_boy Member 75 posts Joined Aug 2010 Location: Pacific NW, USA More info | Sep 17, 2010 02:01 | #29 Is the MK II the best? Sure. Do you need it? No.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Marloon Goldmember 4,323 posts Likes: 3 Joined May 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC. More info | Sep 17, 2010 02:08 | #30 Kooper wrote in post #10923115 ![]() Well, I like to take photos outdoors a lot, usually on trails and such, I don't have a good tripod ($20 walmart thing). Would want to use it when walking about and want to take a picture of subjects I can't approach, probably wildlife on trails while walking. I also go to the city a lot, so if I can find a reason to use it then, there as well; but the idea is outdoors. For your style, a 70-200 Mark II would definitely fit the bill. Save your pennies and don't buy an alternative. I'll just drive you nuts with a whole bunch of "what-if" questions. I'm MARLON
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in 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! |
| ||
Latest registered member is hanhasgotqi 615 guests, 193 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |