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 12 Mar 2012 (Monday) 15:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is the 70-200 II worth the extra $1000?

 
amairphoto
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,048 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 4532
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Las Vegas
     
Mar 12, 2012 15:54 |  #1

I really want this lens, the 70-200 that is. Just that i see the mk I is only $1349. So is it really worth the other grand?


My Website: http://www.amairphoto.​com (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Voaky999
Goldmember
Avatar
3,313 posts
Gallery: 797 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 880
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Edmonton,AB
     
Mar 12, 2012 15:57 |  #2

I had the Mk I, and I truly believe that the Mk II is better. $1,000 better?, that is very subjective and very had to quantify. Would I go back to a Mk I for a $1,000, probably not.


Don
"Knowledge is Good" Emil Faber

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BarrySpug
Member
97 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
     
Mar 12, 2012 17:27 |  #3

Only you can decide if it's worth the $1000 extra. It's not really something you can quantify in dollar terms. Having owned the MkII for a little while now, I have never been more happy with a purchase than this one.


Canon 7D gripped | EF-S 18-135mm | EF 50mm 1.8 | EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II | Steady hand | Fingers Crossed

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Feb 2011
     
Mar 12, 2012 17:28 |  #4

For me? Yes absolutely. For you? I don't know. What do you shoot primarily?


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricku
Goldmember
Avatar
1,295 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bangkok
     
Mar 12, 2012 17:37 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

Well, it is one of the best lenses ever made, that is for sure! So yeah, I think it is worth the extra dollars if you really want / need this lens.

I love everything about marvelous piece of glass except for one thing - the weight. I know that there are heavier lenses out there, but still.. Shooting with this lens feels like shooting a bazooka from my face.

This is why I'm keeping my 135L for travels.


5D II 35L 135L 70-200 2.8L II Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
petsnpeeps
Senior Member
Avatar
384 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2008
     
Mar 12, 2012 17:39 as a reply to  @ Ricku's post |  #6

Yes


Desoto Image Photography (external link)
Frogmobile QR Code Management (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,868 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 744
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Mar 12, 2012 17:40 |  #7

Some owners of both have said it's overhyped and a lot of people have to justify their outlay and talk it up.

If you go to the lens sample archives for both lens, can you honestly pic the difference?


Cheers,
Bear Dale

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EL_PIC
Goldmember
Avatar
2,028 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Austin Texas - Lucca Italy
     
Mar 12, 2012 17:47 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

Canon says you will bend over backwards for it ..
But you would be better off w a MK I and tripod.
Canon has gone Mark xx and price crazy.


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


EL_PIC - RIT BS Photo '78 - Photomask Engineering Mgr
Canon DSLR - Nikon SLR - Phase One 60MP MFDSLR
http://www.Photo-Image-Creations.com (external link)
http://www.musecube.co​m/el_pic/ (external link)
http://www.facebook.co​m/PhotoImageCreations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MGiddings ­ Photography
Senior Member
Avatar
964 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
     
Mar 12, 2012 17:48 |  #9

Yes it is worth the extra money but if this wasn't a business for me there is no way I would pay for it.


https://mgiddings.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,732 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1457
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Mar 12, 2012 17:54 |  #10

I dont justify my purchases. I owned the f/2.8IS mk1 and its an amazing piece of glass.

The mk2 is a different beast. The files it produces truly feel like they have been taken by several pro grade prime lens thrown into a zoom :) One thing to differentiate the two zooms is the new version has a revised updated IS which is a very noticeable upgrade.

If you print the files you may find little difference due to the lack of resolution of print.

The MkII version produces a level of IQ much more closer to using a prime lens than the mk1 version. Is it worth it??? I would say you may benefit adding another lens 1000 bucks (++add a little more $$) in increase your gearlist for more different FL. This will change more perspective/imagery in your photos rather then getting an upgrade of IQ going with the Mk2. The mk1 is an amazing lens even when comparing it to its newer brother.

If you have all of the FL's you need then it may be beneficial to get the mk2.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fligi7
Senior Member
968 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Mar 12, 2012 18:04 |  #11

fotoworx wrote in post #14074109 (external link)
Some owners of both have said it's overhyped and a lot of people have to justify their outlay and talk it up.

If you go to the lens sample archives for both lens, can you honestly pic the difference?

If you can't tell the difference immediately between the MkII and MKI wide open, this new lens is definitely not for you. The difference should be rather immediate in almost any setting, the optics are just that good on the MkII. The only argument regarding optics comparisons between the two that I've seen is that some say there isn't much difference at F/4. Well... ok. I disagree as the difference is still apparent to me at F4, but if you're going to be shooting this lens at a default setting of F4 then this lens obviously provides no added benefit for you over the F4 IS. You buy this lens for its incredible AF performance and optics wide open at 2.8, of which no previous lens matches.

In my opinion, it just comes down to two questions:

1) Do you need a 2.8 lens with good optics?
2) Do you need a 2.8 lens with incredible optics?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mookalafalas
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,149 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 588
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Southern Taiwan
     
Mar 12, 2012 19:27 |  #12

The whole series has great optics. I had an F4 non-IS, and then bought the 2.8 M2. These days, when i pack my bag to go out, I am more likely to take my F4. It has great color and excellent bokeh as well, but is (relatively) light, handy, and unobtrusive when shooting. I don't use either one indoors. I am likely to sell my M2 and re-buy a 135 to complement my 70-200 F4. I mostly do walkaround shooting with my gear in a bag, however. If you shoot in a studio, no doubt the M2 is worth it.


Call me Al Gear Flickr (external link)
You don’t have to have a great lens to take great pictures—but it sure helps. –Ben Long

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ One ­ Pixel ­ Wonder
Member
80 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Mar 12, 2012 19:37 |  #13

DonJuanMair wrote in post #14073613 (external link)
I really want this lens, the 70-200 that is. Just that i see the mk I is only $1349. So is it really worth the other grand?

If you really want it then it's definitely worth the extra grand, and probably some more.


TOPW

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yourdoinitwrong
Goldmember
Avatar
2,394 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
     
Mar 12, 2012 20:12 as a reply to  @ The One Pixel Wonder's post |  #14

Ask yourself a few questions about the lens to see if it is actually worth it to you:

1 - Do you "have to have" the best of whatever type of lens you are contemplating?

2 - Would the purchase take away from other necessities in your life?

3 - Would not getting the Mk II cause buyer's remorse?

4 - Would the Mk I limit you in any way?

Just a few things to think about. You will get a boatload of answers as to whether or not the lens is "worth it." However, everyone's needs, wants, and financial position are different. A pro or serious amateur with a big budget will tell you it is worth it for sure but someone on a budget will tell you that you can still take great shots with the Mk I. Weigh the pros and cons and go with what you feel is best, there is not a bad answer here. You will end up with a very, very good lens or an excellent one either way.


5D4 w/BG-E20, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8L IS Macro, Sigma 50 f/1.4
Full List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amairphoto
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,048 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 4532
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Las Vegas
     
Mar 12, 2012 20:31 |  #15

thanks for all these replies guys, some great points here. I looked into some comparisons and i saw that the older one isnt as sharp at f2.8. I also think i would get mkII remorse!
I also am a professional photographer and would use it mainly for portraits.

So i think im sold, mkii it is!


My Website: http://www.amairphoto.​com (external link)
flickr (external link)

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

3,799 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is the 70-200 II worth the extra $1000?
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!
791 guests, 173 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.