70-200 2.8L IS II SAMPLE (From me)!

cookie99 wrote in post #9749626
Both Fred Miranda and myself agree that the 100 f/2.8 is a sharper lens than the 100 f/2.8 L IS.

I've owned both, they are pretty close. The 100L has a much better IS system though.

You never compared the Mk II to the Mk 1. It was a comparison of the Mk II to the 100L and then the Mk II to the 200 2.8L. How did people think it was the 70-200 Mk II vs Mk I?

Poe wrote in post #9750033
You never compared the Mk II to the Mk 1. It was a comparison of the Mk II to the 100L and then the Mk II to the 200 2.8L. How did people think it was the 70-200 Mk II vs Mk I?

Because I forgot to write that before. It was my fault.

Wow, nice... did you buy it is just test at a store?

Yeah, I bought it and tested it at my office...

They're all hand held unfortunately, but it works out OK (the IS takes care of the hand movement and the 1/180 shutter speed helps ).

If the sharpness of the MK II is marginal, then it's not even worth being an early adopter of the lens. Give it a few years and the price will drop. Alot of MK I owners should just keep it until it's justifiable to make the upgrade.

jdizzle wrote in post #9750176
If the sharpness of the MK II is marginal, then it's not even worth being an early adopter of the lens. Give it a few years and the price will drop. Alot of MK I owners should just keep it until it's justifiable to make the upgrade.

I don't know about the Mark I, I'm comparing it to prime lenses.

Someone else will need to do a comparison to the Mark I as I don't own it.

I do know someone who owns the 70-200 F/4L IS, I'll do a comparison to that one day (when I can borrow it from the other guy).

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9750193
I don't know about the Mark I, I'm comparing it to prime lenses.

Someone else will need to do a comparison to the Mark I as I don't own it.

I do know someone who owns the 70-200 F/4L IS, I'll do a comparison to that one day (when I can borrow it from the other guy).

Obviously, the prime will be sharper.

jdizzle wrote in post #9750203
Obviously, the prime will be sharper.

Did you look at the samples? I'd say they're pretty close actually.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9750215
Did you look at the samples? I'd say they're pretty close actually.

Ya... it's pretty impressive... but too rich for my blood =P

/prays the new Sigma 70-200 will be bad ass and affordable

Here's an image at 190mm @ 2.8 on the 70-200 2.8 IS MK I and 1Ds MK III with minor cropping for composition. Only some minor sharpening in LR.

jdizzle wrote in post #9750225
Here's an image at 190mm @ 2.8 on the 70-200 2.8 IS MK I and 1Ds MK III with minor cropping for composition. Only some minor sharpening in LR.

Very nice, but it's a web sized B&W

themadman wrote in post #9750223
Ya... it's pretty impressive... but too rich for my blood =P

/prays the new Sigma 70-200 will be bad ass and affordable

LOL I hope not. OK I hope it's good, but needs calibrating.

Stealthy, heads up, in THIS thread https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=9750244#p​ost9750244

You claimed your new 70-200 only costs $1900 HKD... thats ten times too cheap =P (missing a zero)

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9750215
Did you look at the samples? I'd say they're pretty close actually.

I did but, close is not a big deal to me. I serisously don't pixel peep. This is just another overpriced lens with slightly, and I mean slightly better optics.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9750240
Very nice, but it's a web sized B&W

As you can see from my sample, it's sharp as tack. And the difference is negligible between my MK I and your MK II. Sori man, this lens is a rip off if you ask me. If you got a microscope zoomed in 20x, you'll see a difference.