Lens test - 70-200 2.8L IS vs. 70-200 2.8L IS II

Alex (NewphotoMan) and I got together today and it gave me the opportunity to test out the 70-200 2.8L IS version 1 versus the version 2. All shots shot with 1D Mark III, handheld, IS on on both. The first set of tests is the 200mm focal length. I will be adding 70mm test shots that were taken inside a bookstore in a bit. Other focal lengths will have to be re-done.

Absolutely nothing has been done to these images except conversion from RAW to JPEG, and obvious crops in the crop images. Everyone should realize that some sharpening should usually be applied, but for pure testing purposes, all settings have been zeroed out.

First set of shots are the 70-200 2.8 IS

ISO 400 - 200mm, f/2.8, 1/125th

IS it me or is there a world of difference. The mark II looks a lot better!!! How do you like the lens?

Even if I hadn't looked at the MKII images, the first shot with the MK1, at f2.8 is, to be blunt, unacceptable. If it was my lens I would have sold it or had it replaced. I do understand that all sharpening has been set to 0.

just noticed that too!!

Wow.. amazing!

70mm shots. Tripod mounted, IS off

First are 70-200 2.8 IS

ISO 100, 70mm, f/2.8, 1/15th

To those that have already commented, please realize that the full image will most likely very usable if it were to be printed out for a paying customer. Also, mind that it was raining, so light was less than ideal. The "sharpness" of these images are consistent with 2 others copies of the 70-200 2.8 IS that I have owned at 200mm at f/2.8. The crop is a huge crop of the overall image, and NO PROCESSING HAS BEEN PERFORMED ON THE IMAGES. If processed, the images will be better, and as final print, will most likely make a customer happy.

thanks a lot for posting up these comparisons

Who is that good looking guy lol i want your lens

coolness. I'm so getting this lens in two years when I can justify it :P

NewphotoMan wrote in post #9857641
Who is that good looking guy lol i want your lens

I saw how you were thinking about making a break for your car when you were playing with the 85L. How am I supposed to trust you from now on?

TaDa wrote in post #9857690
I saw how you were thinking about making a break for your car when you were playing with the 85L. How am I supposed to trust you from now on?

Don't worry he can't run far lugging around the keg. I noticed you guys are from westchester I'm actually from new rochelle myself. That's cool you guys get together to take pics I have been looking for people who enjoy this as much as I do.

TaDa even though there is no post processing, the histograms are a lot more different then I thought they would be. Maybe the cam (metering?) had something to do with this.
If you bring up the blackness level +1 or 2 on the first 70-200's image, it's contrast and color match the II's pretty close.

While shooting it wide open is much more revealing than stopped down to f/4, some hand helds tell the real story... so far I'm not that impressed.
200mm is the first version's weakest range, so what about at 70 or 135mm?
-and-
Time to aim your beasts into the sun...

The softness of the 70-200 2.8 IS wide open on portraits was the reason I got rid of it and went back to the non-IS version. The new version looks like a big, much needed improvement

Awesome. I am sooooo not worthy of that lens, yet I strangely see myself getting one anyway. . . . .tax return should be in soon.