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 Oct 2012 (Friday) 02:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 2.8 IS vs. MKII?

 
Rebel ­ Rouser
Senior Member
375 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Bakersfield, Ca.
     
Oct 12, 2012 02:43 |  #1

Okay, Ive read a ton on all the 70-200s, and all the threads get pretty convoluted. Im simply wanting to know if the MKII is 500 bucks better than the original.

Ive recently got the f4, and I like it a lot!, but for shooting night time football games, Im thinking I may need to step up to the 2.8. But, Im not willing to sacrifice sharpness.

Yeah, the 2.8 will be twice (or more) as heavy, but I just dont see that really bothering me. The F4 seems pretty light to me for what it delivers. So I dont see using a heavier rig being much of an issue to me.

So, again....is the MK II that much better than the original 70-200L 2.8 IS?

Thanks,
Jeremy


7D, Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX & 70-200 f2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sir_Loin
Senior Member
Avatar
550 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 112
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Leicestershire UK
     
Oct 12, 2012 03:03 |  #2

The 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS that you have is a superb lens, well regarded and extremely sharp. But to your question is the MkII f/2.8 worth the extra over the MkI? The answer is a resounding yes! Wide open its much sharper than the MkI, shows no purple fringing and has 4 stop IS to name a few advantages. When I first got my hands on mine, I was astonished at how good it is. So if cost isn't an issue I would say get the MkII, you won't regret it.


EOS 1D4, 5D3, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 14mm f/2.8L II, EF 24mm f/1.4L II, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II, EF 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS, EF 300mm f/4.0L IS * FL-F 300mm f/5.6 FLUORITE, FD 55mm f/1.2 ASPHERICAL, FD 50mm f/1.2L, FD 300mm f/2.8L, FD 50-300mm f/4.5L, EOS M5, M3, EF-M 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 IS, EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS, EF-M 22mm f/2.0, EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scooby888
Senior Member
264 posts
Joined Jun 2012
     
Oct 12, 2012 03:25 |  #3

I would be interested in a real side by side comparison too.

I've currently got the f4 IS and the 2.8 IS mk1, although I should be selling my f4. I do agree that the f4 appears a little crisper but nothing that is apparent when viewing images at normal sizes. The f2.8 mk1 was the wedding photographers choice for a long time and there are many beautiful images with these.

I can't bring myself to spend the extra money on the mkii


5DII Gripped, 7D Gripped, Canon 60D, Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Tokina 50-135 f2.8, Canon 24-70 f2.8 L, Canon 24-105 L f4, Canon 70-200 f4 L IS, Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS, Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L, Canon EF 100 L Macro f2.8, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 1.4tc mkii, Speedlite 580ii, 2x Speedlite 430ii, Monfrotto tripods

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rebel ­ Rouser
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
375 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Bakersfield, Ca.
     
Oct 12, 2012 15:01 |  #4

is there any difference other than IQ? such as the AF being faster, or the IS being better?


7D, Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX & 70-200 f2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
*Jayrou
Goldmember
Avatar
1,121 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Jersey UK
     
Oct 12, 2012 15:12 as a reply to  @ Rebel Rouser's post |  #5

You can see a difference in sharpness on The Digital Picture comparison

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 (external link)

I own the Mark II so can't comment first hand on the Mark I, I came from the F/4 IS, but judging by that, comparison you'd need to stop the Mark I down to match the sharpness of the Mark II.


James
Flickr  (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rebel ­ Rouser
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
375 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Bakersfield, Ca.
     
Oct 12, 2012 15:42 |  #6

I started this thread to plan for the near future. I just got my F4, so im not able to fork out the cash for the 2.8 II right now.. I could afford the f4, so I got it to start taking nice shots. I figured if I needed the 2.8 i could sell the f4 and put that money toward the 2.8. Its nice how the L series telephotos hold their value...

After shooting high school football last night, I can see that there is room for improvement. The f4 was great until it got pretty dark. To get good light, i had to slow the shutter, which killed my action stopping ability. I suppose I could simply get a 2.8 non-IS for doing night sports and keep the f4 for everything else. But if the 2.8 IS II would fit the bill for everything, it'd be the same cost as having both the other lenses...

thanks for the link jayrou

Jeremy


7D, Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX & 70-200 f2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kouasupra
Goldmember
2,750 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 477
Joined May 2008
Location: Fresno/Clovis, CA
     
Oct 12, 2012 15:53 |  #7

I've owned 2 canon 70-200 2.8 IS and since moved to the 70-200 II. The sharpest is definitely there for the II at 2.8. I have no regrets buying the II, it's my most used lens EVER!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Oct 12, 2012 16:34 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

Rebel Rouser wrote in post #15111590 (external link)
Okay, Ive read a ton on all the 70-200s, and all the threads get pretty convoluted. Im simply wanting to know if the MKII is 500 bucks better than the original.

Ive recently got the f4, and I like it a lot!, but for shooting night time football games, Im thinking I may need to step up to the 2.8. But, Im not willing to sacrifice sharpness.

Yeah, the 2.8 will be twice (or more) as heavy, but I just dont see that really bothering me. The F4 seems pretty light to me for what it delivers. So I dont see using a heavier rig being much of an issue to me.

So, again....is the MK II that much better than the original 70-200L 2.8 IS?

Thanks,
Jeremy

Of course it is. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been the best seller of Canon L lens line-up. The question is, is it worth $500 more FOR YOU, and more importantly, can you COMFORTABLY afford it?:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,432 posts
Likes: 3317
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Oct 12, 2012 16:57 |  #9

Check my real world tests.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=961566

The difference between my IS I and IS II was very small. If you looking for shooting sports, why not just 70-200mm f2.8 non IS.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
unistudent1962
Member
166 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Brisbane QLD Australia
     
Oct 12, 2012 17:06 |  #10

Rebel Rouser wrote in post #15111590 (external link)
....is the MK II that much better than the original 70-200L 2.8 IS?

I was looking for a NEW 70-200 f2.8L IS about a year ago and couldn't find one anywhere. Are they still available new now? If not, unless you want to by a used one, why even bother making comparisons between the original and the MkII?


Canon 70D w/Grip l Canon 60D w/Grip l EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS l EF 70-200 f4L IS l EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM l EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro l EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM l EF 50 f1.8 II l EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM l 430 EX II Flash l Manfrotto 055XPROB + 498RC2 Tripod l Benro MP-96 M8 Monopod l Lowepro Vertex 200 AW Backpack l Lowepro Pro Runner 300 AW Backpack l PS CS5 Extended l Lightroom 4.3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rebel ­ Rouser
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
375 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Bakersfield, Ca.
     
Oct 12, 2012 17:53 |  #11

bobbyz wrote in post #15114470 (external link)
Check my real world tests.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=961566

The difference between my IS I and IS II was very small. If you looking for shooting sports, why not just 70-200mm f2.8 non IS.

That is a very helpful comparison. Cropped, you can see that the II does have a sharpness edge over the original.

Ill probably end up saving for the big dog. Im just that person who would look at my photos and think..."it could be a little sharper here, or there", and it would bug me to think that it would be better if Id got the other lens.

Mentioned above, I have thought about having a 2.8 non IS also, but with the cost of the F4 ive got, and the cost of the 2.8 non-is, Id be at the same cost of having one MKII. So if the MKII is as sharp as the f4, why not just have one lens for everything...AND have the sharpest low light photos. The only downside would be losing the joy of the light weight of the f4 on long days...

Thanks,
Jeremy


7D, Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX & 70-200 f2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nightdiver13
Unabashed nerd!
Avatar
2,272 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2010
Location: Bigfoot Country
     
Oct 12, 2012 17:57 |  #12

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15114349 (external link)
Of course it is. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been the best seller of Canon L lens line-up.

Do you have a link for these stats? I can't believe that to be true. I'd think the 24-105 or the 17-40 or even the 24-70 would be top in that list.

Rebel Rouser wrote in post #15114651 (external link)
Ill probably end up saving for the big dog. Im just that person who would look at my photos and think..."it could be a little sharper here, or there", and it would bug me to think that it would be better if Id got the other lens.

I feel that the mark II f/2.8 is closer in image quality to the f/4 IS than it is to the mark I f/2.8. If you're happy with the images coming out of your f/4 and want the same thing from a 2.8 lens, I'd say go for the mark II.


Neil

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rebel ­ Rouser
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
375 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Bakersfield, Ca.
     
Oct 12, 2012 17:58 |  #13

unistudent1962 wrote in post #15114503 (external link)
I was looking for a NEW 70-200 f2.8L IS about a year ago and couldn't find one anywhere. Are they still available new now? If not, unless you want to by a used one, why even bother making comparisons between the original and the MkII?

Yep, Im buying used. I dont see a reason to pay around 500 more when I can get one like brand new from someone who realized they dont need that particular lens. My f4 was off ebay and I paid 860. Its like new, in perfect shape. It just didnt have the hood. So I got a vello from BH for 11 bucks. :D


7D, Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX & 70-200 f2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alazgr8
Member
Avatar
233 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Orange County, CA.
     
Oct 12, 2012 19:05 |  #14

I was recently seeing the MKII used or refurbed for $1999.00, although I was just on Canonpricewatch and there are none available right now. -rick

Rebel Rouser wrote in post #15114677 (external link)
Yep, Im buying used. I dont see a reason to pay around 500 more when I can get one like brand new from someone who realized they dont need that particular lens. My f4 was off ebay and I paid 860. Its like new, in perfect shape. It just didnt have the hood. So I got a vello from BH for 11 bucks. :D


Rick S.
My Gear = Canon 50d ~ EF 100 f/2.8L IS USM Macro ~ EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ~ EF-S 17-55 IS USM f/2.8 IS ~ EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ~ EF 28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rebel ­ Rouser
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
375 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Bakersfield, Ca.
     
Oct 12, 2012 19:24 |  #15

from looking around a lot before purchasing my f4, the typical prices for a nice used lens is about 500 for the f4 non is, 800-1000 for the f4 IS, 90-1000 for the 2.8 non IS, 1300-1500 for the 2.8 IS, and 1900-2200 for the 2.8 IS II.

So roughly 500 bucks or so less than brand new...


7D, Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX & 70-200 f2.8L

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

3,385 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 2.8 IS vs. 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 kenf
676 guests, 279 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.