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 24 Feb 2012 (Friday) 20:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Owners who went from 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM to the MKII

 
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,868 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 744
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Feb 24, 2012 20:50 |  #1

Besides the buzz and hype of owning the lastest lens. How much of a real life difference did it really make to your photos?


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,506 posts
Likes: 3475
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Feb 24, 2012 21:00 |  #2

All depends how good your version I is. Mine was real good but I have seen some bad copies (wide open at f2.8). So that is why most folks will say new version II is so good (it is not denying that) compared to version I.

If you use TCs then for sure version II is much much better.


Fuji XT-1, 18-55mm
Sony A7rIV, , Tamron 28-200mm, Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art FE, Sony 85mm f1.8 FE, Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art FE
Fuji GFX50s, 23mm f4, 32-64mm, 45mm f2.8, 110mm f2, 120mm f4 macro
Canon 24mm TSE-II, 85mm f1.2 L II, 90mm TSE-II Macro, 300mm f2.8 IS I

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
Feb 24, 2012 21:30 |  #3

I just received my Mark II and did a quick test with the Mark I, Mark II, 7D and my very fast dog (kelpie). The conditions were not good; I was throwing a frisbie and trying to get the viewfinder on him and lock focus before he got back to me in a small backyard!

Mark I: ~320 photos of which 70 I would consider keepers
Mark II: ~150 photos of which 80 I would consider keepers

That is WELL over double in focus, very sharp shots compared with the Mark I. So for my copies at least, the auto focus on the Mark II is much, much faster, making it worth the upgrade on it's own. As far as image quality and sharpness are concerned, I did not see much difference between the Mark I and II with the shots in my backyard. However, I take a lot of surfing shots and I was never very impressed with the Mark I and was very underwhelmed with the Mark I with 1.4x extender. I have not shot surfing with the Mark II yet but will be going this week and will post back here then. Looking at the Lens Photo Archive it seems I had a bad copy of the Mark I- I always wondered what the fuss was about. I hope the Mark II lives up to the hype with IQ, it certainly does with the AF


5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff
Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
J_TULLAR
Goldmember
Avatar
3,011 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
     
Feb 25, 2012 02:44 |  #4

My copy of the 70-200 2.8 MK1 at 2.8 was SHARP! I really didnt see the point of the mkii, when they had the sale I bought it just to see what the hype was about. HOLY CRAPPERS! It is much sharper at 2.8 then the mk1! I immediately sold my mk1 and havent looked back since. Its up to you though if you want that much sharper 2.8 shots or not. Also under strobe conditions I saw no difference at 2.8, just under natural light.


Model Mayhem (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,648 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 153
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 25, 2012 09:33 |  #5

I tested them side by side on my tripod, biggest difference was at 2.8 - the II is very sharp. Differences are harder to detect at f4 and beyond. The II is very useable at 2.8




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FeXL
Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
     
Feb 25, 2012 10:42 as a reply to  @ rick_reno's post |  #6

We purchased our MkI in Jan '05, the MkII in July '10. With the MkI we shot over 300,000 images, we've taken around 110,000 images with the MkII (almost exclusively event photography with both). We very rarely shoot at anything other than 2.8. I used a Canon doubler (MkII) on the MkI occasionally, the results were not satisfactory (I believe this is more an issue with the TC than the lens). I've never used a TC on the MkII. Both lenses were used on pro bodies (1D MkII, 1D MkIIN, 1D MkIV).

1) It focuses more quickly than our MkI ever did, especially in low light.
2) There is less "searching" with the lens trying to find focus in low light/low contrast settings.
3) The IS (which we use sparingly) is faster & more quiet with the MkII.
4) Image quality at our usual aperture (2.8) is better. How much is difficult to quantify, but if you randomly pull a dozen samples shot with each lens on the same body there is a difference.
5) I like the lock on the lens hood on the MkII. There were times that I found the hood on the early version rotated to the point of nearly falling off.
5) The MkI version owed us nothing. We purchased it in '05 for around $1900 and sold it for $1600 in '10.

Satisfied with the purchase.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
90c4
Goldmember
1,271 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2007
     
Feb 25, 2012 11:06 |  #7

My original was very sharp. However, there is a quality of the pictures with the mk II that makes it well worth the upgrade for me. It's a quality that I also see in the 85L - not just sharpness but a richness of saturation and contrast that I don't see in my other lenses. I can't imagine anyone regretting the upgrade. It's so significant that I'm very tempted to upgrade my 24-70 to the mk II just to get similar optics, and cash is tight...


www.facebook.com/stage​shooter (external link)http://www.facebook.co​m/stageshooter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dulaney22
Member
66 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Feb 25, 2012 12:01 |  #8

How is it compared to the non-is version?


Canon 5D | Fuji X100 | ∑ 50 1.4 | 135L | Canon 70-200L f/2.8 | Canon 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PM01
Goldmember
1,188 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: USA!
     
Feb 25, 2012 12:34 as a reply to  @ dulaney22's post |  #9

My non IS version, circa 1995, has always been sharper than any of the Gen 1 IS lenses. The Gen 2 wipes the non IS version - no contest. This is at wide open and all apertures. Worth the upgrade.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,648 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 153
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 25, 2012 13:31 |  #10

dulaney22 wrote in post #13964908 (external link)
How is it compared to the non-is version?

better wide open. i had all three of them here.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigBlueDodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,726 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: Lonestar State
     
Feb 25, 2012 14:50 |  #11

For me, about the only noticeable difference was the sharpness of the MKII over the MKI. Other than that, I didn't see much else. To be honest, I was a little dissappointed when I got mine, given all of the hype that members have made on the board about the MKII. It's a great lens no doubt, but maybe I just had a good MKI


David (aka BigBlueDodge)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bear ­ Dale
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,868 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 744
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Feb 25, 2012 16:52 |  #12

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #13965630 (external link)
For me, about the only noticeable difference was the sharpness of the MKII over the MKI. Other than that, I didn't see much else. To be honest, I was a little dissappointed when I got mine, given all of the hype that members have made on the board about the MKII. It's a great lens no doubt, but maybe I just had a good MKI

This is what I'm worrried about, if I will really notice any real world difference for the $$$ outlay.


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,506 posts
Likes: 3475
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Feb 25, 2012 17:29 |  #13

I think it depends on your end result also. If you say doing 11x14 or so size most probably no differences going to show. Now do same at 20x30 prints the newer version is really really good just like any top of the line prime lens. My 70-200mm f2.8 IS II pictures look as good as from my 300mm f2.8 IS. The non IS and the version I of the IS were nowhere close to my 300mm f2.8 IS.

Here is a quick one from this week:

IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s3/v41/p719027961-5.jpg

When I look at my shots at 100% am amazed at the sharpness from the new zoom. However good my version I was, it wasn't that sharp when comparing at 100%. Now does this matters, to some it does, to some it doesn't. Lot of folks sold their 135L, ver I of 70-200mm f2.8 IS and replaced both with ver II. Some even replace their 300mm f4 and 200mm f2.8 primes to use the zoom alone. So for some it is cheaper as using only one lens now instead of bunch of primes. Personally I sold my 135L, don't use my 85mm f1.8 at all.

Fuji XT-1, 18-55mm
Sony A7rIV, , Tamron 28-200mm, Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art FE, Sony 85mm f1.8 FE, Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art FE
Fuji GFX50s, 23mm f4, 32-64mm, 45mm f2.8, 110mm f2, 120mm f4 macro
Canon 24mm TSE-II, 85mm f1.2 L II, 90mm TSE-II Macro, 300mm f2.8 IS I

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Overread
Goldmember
Avatar
2,233 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 72
Joined Mar 2010
     
Feb 25, 2012 17:42 |  #14

For me the big attraction was improved optical performance - esp since I regularly used the original with a 1.4TC - the MII let me use it with a 2*TC and still get good performance (about equal to a good copy of the 100-400mm). That was an outstanding achievement and the 2*TC went from something I'd use once or twice to something I could happily use each and every time I wanted the reach, without having to worry for image quality.

Sure there are sharper options out there for 400mm - but they are all prime lenses (and some of them cost a small fortune). The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII was all I wanted in a 70-200mm lens and more. Its improved AF and IS were great boons to have.

As for its bare performance, I noticed a jump in things for certain, personally I didn't find this as night and day different in my shooting - but it is good to have.


In my view the big gains of the MII are improved wide open performance and improved performance with teleconverters. Secondary to that is improved AF and IS (the IS was so quiet when I first got it I thought it was broken till I put my ear to the metal).


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
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Feb 26, 2012 01:44 |  #15

Jim, the 70-200 MK II is one of my favorite lenses. The IQ and microcontrast boost is what made me sell my MK I. I don't regret it one bit. I highly recommend this lens.




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

4,500 views & 0 likes for this thread
Owners who went from 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM to the MKII
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 Thingsyettobe
243 guests, 164 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.