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 08 Nov 2011 (Tuesday) 12:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

EF 70 mm - 200 mm - F/2.8L IS or EF 70 mm - 200 mm - F/2.8L IS II

 
shutterbugcrazy
Senior Member
Avatar
458 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Sevierville, Tennessee
     
Nov 08, 2011 12:59 |  #1

I found a great copy of the original EF 70 mm - 200 mm - F/2.8L IS and it happens to be $500 cheaper than the new II version. Is there any good reasons why I should consider spending more on the II version. I shoot everything... people, landscapes, wildlife and even set up shoots in my garage. I'm not a wedding photographer just a serious hobbiest so should I save that $500 on the older lens?


https://www.facebook.c​om …otography/36095​6144097830 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Daan37
Senior Member
Avatar
414 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Nov 08, 2011 13:28 |  #2

shutterbugcrazy wrote in post #13371261 (external link)
Is there any good reasons why I should consider spending more on the II version.

Better IQ + 4 stop IS (instead of 3 stop). Don't know if that is worth the extra cash though. You could even consider the 2.8 non-IS, which is very much on par with the 2.8 IS II for IQ.


Canon + Elinchrom | www.daanbarnhoorn.nl (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
c2thew
Goldmember
Avatar
3,929 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Not enough minerals.
     
Nov 08, 2011 14:07 |  #3

Daan37 wrote in post #13371412 (external link)
...You could even consider the 2.8 non-IS, which is very much on par with the 2.8 IS II for IQ.


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

errr.... might want to get your eyes checked if you think the 70-200 2.8 non is is sharper then the mk2. (fyi: I've owned all three 2.8 70-200's and the 70-200 2.8 non is was not better then the IS brothers in real world situations)


Flickr (external link) |Gear|The-Digital-Picture (external link)|The $6 mic | MAGIC LANTERN (external link) | Welding Filter
Go Support Magic Lantern 2.3!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daan37
Senior Member
Avatar
414 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Nov 08, 2011 15:08 |  #4

c2thew wrote in post #13371605 (external link)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 (external link)

errr.... might want to get your eyes checked if you think the 70-200 2.8 non is is sharper then the mk2. (fyi: I've owned all three 2.8 70-200's and the 70-200 2.8 non is was not better then the IS brothers in real world situations)

I never said is was sharper. What is it with all this sharpness obsession anyway??? IQ is more than sharpness alone. But anyway, in real world situations - without pixel-peeping the hell out of images - IQ between all the 70-200's is very good. Since OP's question involves budget considerations, I think the 2.8 non-IS is worth checking out, provided he doesn't need IS.


Canon + Elinchrom | www.daanbarnhoorn.nl (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Veemac
Goldmember
2,098 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Arizona, USA
     
Nov 08, 2011 16:51 |  #5

shutterbugcrazy wrote in post #13371261 (external link)
I found a great copy of the original EF 70 mm - 200 mm - F/2.8L IS and it happens to be $500 cheaper than the new II version. Is there any good reasons why I should consider spending more on the II version. I shoot everything... people, landscapes, wildlife and even set up shoots in my garage. I'm not a wedding photographer just a serious hobbiest so should I save that $500 on the older lens?

The "old" version has always been considered a great lens and has been the staple of many photographers' bags over the years. Just because the MkII version came out doesn't mean it suddenly turned into a piece of junk. With that said, the MkII is said to be better in some regards, but it all comes down to your budget. If the extra $500 is no big deal to you, throw it down and get the MkII....if laying those extra Benjamins down is going to hurt, then get the "old" version and know that you still have an excellent lens that has helped many photographers capture many great images.

I have the "old" version myself and don't feel even the slightest need to upgrade to the MkII. As a hobbyist, it does everything I need and more....but I'm not one to pixel-peep at 300% looking for the slightest imperfections, either.


Mac
-Stuff I Use-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcox10
Member
110 posts
Joined May 2009
     
Nov 08, 2011 17:06 |  #6

The MkII is sharper when using teleconverters. That is the only reason I personally found for getting the MkII over the original.


S95 | 7D | Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS | Canon 50mm f1.8 | Sigma 8-16mm | 580EX II | 430EX II | Various Strobist Gear | Feisol CT-3442 Rapid w/ Acratech GP-S ballhead

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
c2thew
Goldmember
Avatar
3,929 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Not enough minerals.
     
Nov 08, 2011 20:59 |  #7

Daan37 wrote in post #13371909 (external link)
I never said is was sharper. What is it with all this sharpness obsession anyway??? IQ is more than sharpness alone. But anyway, in real world situations - without pixel-peeping the hell out of images - IQ between all the 70-200's is very good. Since OP's question involves budget considerations, I think the 2.8 non-IS is worth checking out, provided he doesn't need IS.

When I read "on par" that usually means that the image quality would produce identical images however in order to discern quality, sharpness is the major factor when deciding which lens is better. Color and saturation come in second. The 2.8 non IS has less contrast then the IS model in real life shooting situations. Being able to shoot at 1/30 (IS) vs 1/80 or 1/125 with the non IS is a huge real life factor. Besides the OP was comparing the IS vs IS mk2 as mentioned in the title of the thread.


Flickr (external link) |Gear|The-Digital-Picture (external link)|The $6 mic | MAGIC LANTERN (external link) | Welding Filter
Go Support Magic Lantern 2.3!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
patliean1
Senior Member
Avatar
381 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Chicagoland, IL
     
Nov 08, 2011 21:17 as a reply to  @ c2thew's post |  #8

I've used the 70-200mm f/4 (non IS), the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS ver 2.

The ver 2 is much better in terms of contrast, sharpness, and IS....I can shoot on location with strobes using shutter speeds of 1/25th of sec at 200mm without any ghosting! That is 3-stops and the lens is good up to 4-stops.

Buy the ver 1 now and save up and trade in for the ver 2 later if you desire!


...BECAUSE SEEKING VALIDATION FROM ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPHER IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OPINIONS OF PAID CLIENTS.
www.patrolind.com (external link)
www.vimeo.com/25753524 (external link) <------Behind the scenes video of my photoshoots! (Featured on FStoppers)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daan37
Senior Member
Avatar
414 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Nov 09, 2011 00:58 |  #9

c2thew wrote in post #13373564 (external link)
When I read "on par" that usually means that the image quality would produce identical images however in order to discern quality, sharpness is the major factor when deciding which lens is better. Color and saturation come in second. The 2.8 non IS has less contrast then the IS model in real life shooting situations. Being able to shoot at 1/30 (IS) vs 1/80 or 1/125 with the non IS is a huge real life factor. Besides the OP was comparing the IS vs IS mk2 as mentioned in the title of the thread.

I agree, most people (on forums anyway) seem to focus primarily on sharpness when talking about IQ. But IMO there is also bokeh, CA/fringing, distortion, vignetting and like you said colors and contrast to consider. There are all very important too. IMO Sometimes more important than sharpness. But I guess it depends on what you shoot and how you do that. To elaborate on that... the mkI's lower contrast (and to some degree pixel-peeping sharpness) may be favorable for portrait shooting. For other tasks it may be less desirable. I am aware that OP is considering an IS version. And sure IS helps with static subjects/objects. But it isn't of any help when tracking moving objects/subjects. OP mentions he likes to shoot people, landscapes and wildlife. Do the people and wildlife move? In what lighting consitions does he shoot them? Does he have a tripod when shooting landscapes? Does he have a steady hand? The point I am trying to make is, it is difficult to know wether he "needs" IS or not based on the given information... hence my suggestion to check out the non IS version. Of course he can do whatever he wants with this advice ;)


Canon + Elinchrom | www.daanbarnhoorn.nl (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Nov 09, 2011 06:37 |  #10

IS is very useful for steadying the view finder with longer lenses. I don't know about others but I try to capture a gesture, a fleeting moment, etc. and that is hard to do when the subject is bouncing around in the viewfinder. The MKII is the sharpest of the 70-200 family so, disregarding IS, it has that going for it. The color/contrast is also first rate, imo.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shutterbugcrazy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
458 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Sevierville, Tennessee
     
Nov 09, 2011 08:46 |  #11

Thank you all for your advice.. I think I may go with the first series lens with IS and I could use the $500 toward the 2X III extender. This will be my first L lens so I'm hopefully to see the results.


https://www.facebook.c​om …otography/36095​6144097830 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,017 posts
Likes: 1138
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Nov 09, 2011 09:28 |  #12

So how much for the ver I. $500 cheaper implies more like $1700 or so. That is too much IMHO. I have very sharp copy (you can see my thread comparing Ver I, ver II and 135L) and at the time I sold it for $1250 or so. Now prices are little higher. If you do get anice deal I wouldn't minf ver I.


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
TripleG
Member
Avatar
161 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Durham, NH
     
Nov 09, 2011 10:54 |  #13

If you have already confirmed the IS v1 as a great copy then I would spend the money on something else.

In regards to the sharpness of the non-IS vs the IS II. I had both for about a month and in my comparisons I would
say the IS II is slightly sharper. Not much but you can see it. Whether that qualifies as "on par" I don't know. That's
just semantics.



Canon 1D IV / 1D II
Canon 16-35 f2.8L Mk II / 24-70 f2.8L / 70-200 f2.8L IS II / 1.4x TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
patliean1
Senior Member
Avatar
381 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Chicagoland, IL
     
Nov 09, 2011 11:03 |  #14

Based on local Craigslist prices and such, I wouldn't pay more than $1400 for a used version 1. It's seems like used version 2 prices are hovering just about $2000. Just because there is a latest version doesn't automatically make the version 1 "old" or "useless".


...BECAUSE SEEKING VALIDATION FROM ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPHER IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OPINIONS OF PAID CLIENTS.
www.patrolind.com (external link)
www.vimeo.com/25753524 (external link) <------Behind the scenes video of my photoshoots! (Featured on FStoppers)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jayadeff
Senior Member
367 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Salinas, CA
     
Nov 10, 2011 00:20 |  #15

If you shoot primarily at f/2.8 like I do, the newer version is much better, especially at 200mm. If you shoot mostly stopped down, it's not worth the extra money.




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

2,228 views & 0 likes for this thread
EF 70 mm - 200 mm - F/2.8L IS or EF 70 mm - 200 mm - F/2.8L IS 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 is Blamurai
748 guests, 267 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.