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

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

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

malla1962 wrote in post #10971199
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.

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

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

that would be rad beyond rad

Anders Östberg wrote in post #10971259
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.

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.

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!

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/

the new M2 with a 2*TC
http://www.flickr.com …4/sets/72157624​636257785/
(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/
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.

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.

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!

Anders Östberg wrote in post #10972009
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.

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

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.

ckckevin wrote in post #10973111
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.