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 04 Mar 2012 (Sunday) 15:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Optics Compare? - 70-200mm f2.8 USM vs 70-200mm f2.8 USM IS Mark II

 
HazChem
Member
175 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2012
     
Mar 09, 2012 17:25 |  #16

SMP_Homer wrote in post #14055365 (external link)
the weight difference between IS I and IS II is about that of a major league baseball...

it's not very noticeable...

A baseball does not weigh 20 g (0.7 oz)... Quite a bit more actually.

Having had both, I do not regret the Mk II one bit.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SMP_Homer
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,709 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 535
Joined Mar 2008
Location: London, Ontario
     
Mar 09, 2012 18:02 |  #17

HazChem wrote in post #14058426 (external link)
A baseball does not weigh 20 g (0.7 oz)... Quite a bit more actually.

Having had both, I do not regret the Mk II one bit.

the difference between the 2 lenses in the subject line is closer to 6oz than it it .7 oz


subject line is 70-200mm f2.8 USM vs 70-200mm f2.8 USM IS Mark II



EOS R6’ / 1D X / 1D IV (and the wife has a T4i)
Sig35A, Sig50A, Sig85A, Sig14-24A, Sig24-105A, Sig70-200S, Sig150-600C
100-400L, 100L, 100/2, 300 2.8L, 1.4x II / 2x II
600EX-II X3, 430EX-III X3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ One ­ Pixel ­ Wonder
Member
80 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Mar 09, 2012 18:37 |  #18

Erik Melander wrote in post #14021788 (external link)
Has anyone done side-by-side optics comparisons of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 USM vs the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS Mark II?
If so, would love to hear end-user results; I'm debating skipping the IS Mark II version not only for the price tag, but the addition weight as well.

- Erik

DigitalRev did a fun video comparing the 70-200s which casts some good light from the digiralrev-style perspective. If you haven't seen it you should definitely throw it into your research: Canon 70-200mm Big Battle (f/2.8, f/2.8 II & f/4) (external link)


TOPW

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChunkyDA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,712 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Emerald Coast, FL
     
Mar 09, 2012 20:15 |  #19

I made the jump when the II was discounted to less that $2,000. Before I sold the non-IS id did a few comparison shots and they seemed to provide about the same evidence. As nice as my non-IS was, the II is sharper and has better color and contrast. Note that this is not something a casual observer will easily pick out in a processed photo. Below is a sample of the new lens with snippets from the old lens pasted in. Areas of comparison are circled in orange with one full crop in the second picture. These were taken with my 1DmII so I have come to the conclusion that the latest Canon (1dIV and 5dIII) cameras easily outperform the old lenses and will show flaws of the old glass more than older cameras or consumer grade cameras. I am quite happy with my new lens since 70-200mm is where a good majority of my photos are taken. Your mileage will vary.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Dave
Support Search and Rescue, Get Lost (external link)
Gear list and some feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HazChem
Member
175 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2012
     
Mar 09, 2012 21:59 |  #20

SMP_Homer wrote in post #14058606 (external link)
the difference between the 2 lenses in the subject line is closer to 6oz than it it .7 oz


subject line is 70-200mm f2.8 USM vs 70-200mm f2.8 USM IS Mark II


I'm too young to be losing my eyesight. My bad... I'll go back to my corner now




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

3,034 views & 0 likes for this thread
Optics Compare? - 70-200mm f2.8 USM vs 70-200mm f2.8 USM IS Mark II
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 was a spammer, and banned as such!
797 guests, 184 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.