Thoughts on 70-200 IS 2.8 mkII for non-pro use

bobbyz wrote in post #13451410
f4 IS is not f2.8 IS II. If someone thinks that they just dreaming. f4 IS is very nice lens, no questions but f2.8 IS II is better in every respect. Weight/price you have to pay. Now if you don't need f2.8 then why even look at f2.8 lens.

Lol, you reiterate my own argument...2.8IS II is better in every aspect, but do I NEED 2.8?

Well, I suppose I don't NEED it, but it sure would be nice to have it. Or, you could say I want the 2.8, but do I NEED to better IQ (which probably wont be all that noticeable on things other than 100% crops/very large prints)

I always hear people say that if you are doing this for money, then get the best available equipment. Which essentially implies that if you aren't doing this for money, there really isn't a need for the best equipment.

What's wrong with being a non-pro and demanding 1st class IQ? I do and I'll never make a dime from my gear.

mannetti21 wrote in post #13451469
Lol, you reiterate my own argument...2.8IS II is better in every aspect, but do I NEED 2.8?

Well, I suppose I don't NEED it, but it sure would be nice to have it. Or, you could say I want the 2.8, but do I NEED to better IQ (which probably wont be all that noticeable on things other than 100% crops/very large prints)

I always hear people say that if you are doing this for money, then get the best available equipment. Which essentially implies that if you aren't doing this for money, there really isn't a need for the best equipment.

Maybe you should rent both a 2.8 and a 4.0.

Take them out and shoot with them for a day or two, then do the comparison and make a decision for yourself.

Back when I owned a 70-200mm L lens, I went with the 4.0 because it was a bit sharper than the 2.8.

Of course the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L Mk II has changed all that, now the 2.8 is as sharp as the 4.0.

Not an issue for me as even 200mm is too short for me.

When you buy the 70-200mm 2.8 Mk II and a TC you are in it for almost $3K

I am not a pro, but I need reach .... lots of reach and I am willing to pay for it.

If I was a tele-zoom user I would have the 70-200 2.8 Mk II.

I'm nowhere near a pro shooter and never plan to be. I bought the Mk I version (before the Mk II version existed) simply because I wanted it and had the money for it without screwing up my finances. That was reason enough for me and I've never lost a moment of sleep over it. With that said, I have no plans to upgrade to the Mk II because the version I have is plenty good enough for me.

I'm not a pro either, I rented a 70-200 2.8 non i.s. for a basketball game and did some other photos with it, indoors with wife and family while I had it. When my wife saw the results she told me " we need a lens like that!" So I got the 70-200 2.8 MkII . I use it alot for everything, and I forget the cost when I see images it produces. If you really want it, get it and don't look back.

I am by far not a pro just still learning and I have one. If you can afford go for it

I've got a couple 70-200 2.8's (v1 & v2), its strictly a hobby but I am known to be irresponsible.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13450982
Buy Once .. Cry Once

Why buy a lesser lens knowing you'll probably buy up later? Get the glass you want provided it doesn't impact your bottom line to the point you're skipping meals or lying to your better half.

I LOVE the quote, "Buy Once...Cry Once," that just put everything in perspective!

the 2.8 mk II did not overwow me with sharpness at 2.8. yes I did see that it was significantly sharper then the old 2.8 IS but the true sharpness didn't kick in until 3.5 and up. I've tried both the 2.8mk1, 2.8mk2 and f/4IS and the 2.8mk2 was overly hyped when shot wide open.

but if you have the money to swing for the mk2 then go for it. like all electronics, everything depreciates...

c2thew wrote in post #13452466
the 2.8 mk II did not overwow me with sharpness at 2.8. yes I did see that it was significantly sharper then the old 2.8 IS but the true sharpness didn't kick in until 3.5 and up. I've tried both the 2.8mk1, 2.8mk2 and f/4IS and the 2.8mk2 was overly hyped when shot wide open.

That's the first I've heard about someone actually seeing a noticeable enough difference (or much difference at all) when stopping down to the point they were disappointed shooting it wide open. What body were you using it on and what were you shooting? Mine never leaves 2.8 because it is so sharp wide open and does not benefit from what I can see in stopping down. This is coming from a true pixel peeper that regularly zooms 100% and more on most of my photos when reviewing them. It's absolutely phenomenal wide open. I actually try shooting at f/3.2 and f/4 every once in a while just for giggles but every time there is zero perceptible increase in sharpness to me, and I look very hard for it.

Fligi7 wrote in post #13452488
That's the first I've heard about someone actually seeing a noticeable enough difference (or much difference at all) when stopping down to the point they were disappointed shooting it wide open. What body were you using it on and what were you shooting? Mine never leaves 2.8 because it is so sharp wide open and does not benefit from what I can see in stopping down. This is coming from a true pixel peeper that regularly zooms 100% and more on most of my photos when reviewing them. It's absolutely phenomenal wide open. I actually try shooting at f/3.2 and f/4 every once in a while just for giggles but every time there is zero perceptible increase in sharpness to me, and I look very hard for it.

Im also surprised abut his comment...I've looked through maybe 50-75 100% crops and my eyes cant see a consistent difference between 2.8 and any other aperture value. The images on thedigitalpicture.com basically confirm this.

I don't shoot for food on my table and I probably never will. But I purchased this lens with no regrets!

Go for it.

I bought a 70-200 f4 and it wasnt fast enough for me for shooting action sports as a hobbyist so i eventually traded straight up for a 200 2.8. I paid $530 for a mint copy and feel I got at least that in value as a trade.

My suggestion for you is get a used copy of the 70-200 f4 as image quality and sharpness were incredible. Try it and see if it fits your needs. Its a nice size and weight. Then you can trade up later on if you feel like you want one of the 2.8 copies. You basically can rent for free this route and either find a gem of a lens or cross it off your wish list and upgrade.

I don't make money with photography but as you can see from my signature, i think is worth to spend on lenses. At the moment i'm also considering 70-200 2.8II but against the 200 F2.0 .
Between the the zooms i'd choose 2.8 II. Other people is right: spend once spend well.

mannetti21 wrote in post #13453183
Im also surprised abut his comment...I've looked through maybe 50-75 100% crops and my eyes cant see a consistent difference between 2.8 and any other aperture value. The images on thedigitalpicture.com basically confirm this.

same here. It is very sharp at f2.8 and I am using it at f2.8 most of the time. I can't tell the zoom apart from my 300mm f2.8 is at f2.8, it is so good. Same with 135L.