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 23 Sep 2010 (Thursday) 23:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II that much better?

 
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Sep 24, 2010 13:22 |  #16

SiaoP wrote in post #10968374 (external link)
Y e S. The mark 1 was not sharp.

The mk1 is sharp just not as sharp as the mk2 or f4.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Sep 24, 2010 13:32 |  #17

malla1962 wrote in post #10971199 (external link)
The mk1 is sharp just not as sharp as the mk2 or f4.

My mk1 was seriously unsharp at f/2.8, even though Canon serviced it twice and proclaimed it was "within tolerances". At f/4 it began to shape up.

My copy was noticably worse than others I compared it to though, so I think many may well have a sharper lens than the one I had.


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Koshin
Senior Member
Avatar
275 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Indianapolis
     
Sep 24, 2010 14:40 |  #18

vietiscool wrote in post #10970600 (external link)
damn i wish there really were a 20-700 2.8 lens....

I see what you did there....I made a typo lol :D

that would be rad beyond rad


VISIThttp://GarageSpec.net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Overread
Goldmember
Avatar
2,197 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Mar 2010
     
Sep 24, 2010 14:46 |  #19

Anders Östberg wrote in post #10971259 (external link)
My mk1 was seriously unsharp at f/2.8, even though Canon serviced it twice and proclaimed it was "within tolerances". At f/4 it began to shape up.

My copy was noticably worse than others I compared it to though, so I think many may well have a sharper lens than the one I had.

That or your camera body was out of sync with your copy of that lens. Thus sending either in on its own would have had Canon say there was nothing wrong with it (because it is within the tollerances of manufacture) but when put together they gave a less than ideal performance.

This is why sending in test shots (at the very least) or sending both camera and lens in together is the only foolproof way to get a calibration that you know works for you.


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
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Sep 24, 2010 15:59 |  #20

The last time both my cameras and lenses were calibrated at the same time, and my bodies also work just fine with all my other lenses. Believe me, my copy of the 70-200 was not good, I've compared it to two other copies that were both visible sharper. The new v.2 lens which replaced it is miles apart from the old one, quite sharp wide open.


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sloanbj
Senior Member
Avatar
297 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
     
Sep 24, 2010 18:39 |  #21

I really wish people would do proper comparison tests and post the results with actual photos. It's hard to put much stock in claims that lenses are amazing, sharp, better than others, etc. The few comparison shots posted on this forums demonstrate that it is very difficult to see a difference.

Makes sense to me to discuss objective things like cost, weight, focus speed, vignetting. Reliability is more subjective. Sharpness and IQ are not really worth discussing as we seem to be on completely subjective personal ground. Often I suspect a lot of bias toward validating the high dollar lens the poster just purchased!


Flickr (external link) 5Dii * Canon 50 * 85 * 17-40L * 24-105L * 180L * 100-400L * 580ex ii
Film: Contax | Rolleiflex | Pentax

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Overread
Goldmember
Avatar
2,197 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Mar 2010
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:24 |  #22

Part of the problem with comparison shots is a lot of us sold our Mk1 to purchase the Mk2 so there wasn't any lens around to make a comparison with under the same shooting conditions.

If you want a rough idea though you can have a look a these two sets I have: (resized and 100% crops are present - all edited)
Original with a 2*TC
http://www.flickr.com …4/sets/72157613​520763508/ (external link)

the new M2 with a 2*TC
http://www.flickr.com …4/sets/72157624​636257785/ (external link)
(the magpie is probably not the best to look at being an ISO 800 and slower than ideal speed)
Some slightly better mixed shots here:
http://www.flickr.com …4/sets/72157624​289088007/ (external link)
the blackbird taken with the 2*TC

Granted they are not shot under test conditions, but to me it still shows that the new lens was noticeably improved over the original when pushed to the extremes of being used with a 2*TC.


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
chestercopperpot
Senior Member
996 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:27 |  #23

I think it's absolutely worth it. But I suppose it depends on how much you use that particular lens/focal length. I use it all the time, so to me the enhancements made are both very noticeable and worth the money. I don't have a single regret about upgrading.


Michael
5D Mark III
16-35mm 2.8L II; 35mm 1.4L; 85 1.2L II; 70-200 2.8L IS II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tdragone
Goldmember
Avatar
2,188 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2004
Location: San Diego, California
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:35 |  #24

I can't do an empirical comparison because my gear (mkiii and 70-200 2.8 IS were stolen) but I can tell you that the pictures I've taken with my mk iv and the mark ii lens are orders of magnitude better than what the mk iii and mki version of the lens produced. Both color and sharpness are amazing when I compare shots taken in similar conditions. It's not a side by side test, but damn, the mk ii IS fantastic!


-Tom Dragonetti
Spyder Holster + 1Dmk IV, 50D, G11
10-22, 16-35 2.8Lii, , 24-70 2.8Lii, 50mm 1.4,
70-200 2.8Lii IS, 100-400L IS
1.4x TC, 580EX ii, ST-E2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ckckevin
Goldmember
Avatar
1,439 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Bay Area
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:44 |  #25

Anders Östberg wrote in post #10972009 (external link)
The last time both my cameras and lenses were calibrated at the same time, and my bodies also work just fine with all my other lenses. Believe me, my copy of the 70-200 was not good, I've compared it to two other copies that were both visible sharper. The new v.2 lens which replaced it is miles apart from the old one, quite sharp wide open.

If you know that you got a not so good copy (or the one that is not work right with your camera, please don't generalized it and say that the whole mk1 are not sharp.


Kevin life= learning
500D, Canon 10-22mm, Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 60 macro, Canon 85mm 1.8, Sigma 8mm 3.5, Sigma 30mm 1.4, Sigma 50-150mm 2.8, Kenko SP300 1.4x, efs extension tubes, 580EX, and lens that i don't like

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
00dahc
Senior Member
Avatar
466 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:45 |  #26

I've been able to shoot with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II now. It's amazing in sharpness.

2 years ago I owned a 70-200 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS, and 70-200 4 IS

I set them all up in a controlled setting and took the same pictures with both cameras(1D IIn and 40D) to compare them all at 70mm and 200 wide open and all at f/4.

70-200 4 IS was so much shaper, I didn't even need to test it again. Even with the 2.8's at f/4

The other two were noticeabley less sharp but not horrible(but not good) with the non-IS 2.8 being slightly shaper from center to corner throughout.

Didn't have the 2.8 IS MarkII in the same setting of course but shooting it compared to my 4L IS(which was a CLEAR winner over the other two, thus I kept) and I couldn't tell them apart as far as sharpness goes. The 70-200 f/4L IS has long been said to be the sharpest zoom Canon has made, I think it has a big(too heavy) brother now :)


Canon 7D | 70-200 f/4L IS | 50 f/1.8 II | Sigma 30 EX f/1.4 | Sigma 50 EX f/2.8 Macro | Tokina 12-24 f/4 | 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Apollo.11
Goldmember
Avatar
1,845 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:50 as a reply to  @ Overread's post |  #27

I was not unhappy with the Mark 1, but when I had an opportunity to pick up the Mark II for $2k, I jumped on it. I figured if it wasn't that much better, I could sell it for a little profit.

I had both at the same time, and found the Mark II was noticeably sharper wide open. I never bothered posting as I just wanted to satisfy my own curiosity. I sold the Mark I two days later.


Some Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Sep 25, 2010 02:01 |  #28

ckckevin wrote in post #10973111 (external link)
If you know that you got a not so good copy (or the one that is not work right with your camera, please don't generalized it and say that the whole mk1 are not sharp.

I agree I should have made that clear in the first post, I usually try to be more precise. In the follow-ups I do say "my mk1", "my copy" etc, so that should be clear now then.

Still, in the case of the new 70-200 my first post is actually what I meant - I stand by the opinion that the new lens is significantly better than the old one. The one I have now is visibly better even than the two good copies I compared my old lens with; sharper wide open and it has less CA. If the difference is big enough for you only you can say.

Anyway, you don't have to, and you shouldn't take my word for it. Read all the unanimously positive tests online, or even better, test for yourself. I think I have trashed my test shots, but if they are still on my disk I'll try to find them, though it's hardly worth the effort and won't change anything. The only valid result is really if you test your own lens and are happy that you like what you see.


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

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

5,552 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II that much better?
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 tnt2112
938 guests, 358 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.