70-200 MK II Review by Jeff Ascough

Just thought I'd put this out there who are looking to buy this lens. Enjoy the review.

http://jeffascough.typ​epad.com …-f28is-ii-minireview.html

*shakes fists*

Someday. Maybe when my son enters peewee sports.

I had mine for a day...and it is already my favorite lens in the bag!

aaronmd wrote in post #10694836
I had mine for a day...and it is already my favorite lens in the bag!

That's because it's new. "WEIGHT" a little while!!!

No waiting! Just buy!

KRUSH wrote in post #10694887
That's because it's new. "WEIGHT" a little while!!!

That feeling doesn't go away. I've had mine for about three months or so and still won't think twice about going on a walkabout with only that lens.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #10695090
That feeling doesn't go away. I've had mine for about three months or so and still won't think twice about going on a walkabout with only that lens.

I agree. It's a great walk around lens.

jwcdds wrote in post #10694794
*shakes fists*

Someday. Maybe when my son enters peewee sports.

Sell some of your stuff and he'll be in any sport you want.

Think if I sold the 55-250... I might be able to pay for uniforms. =oP

Haven't read the whole thing but 70-200mm f2.8 mk1 optical performer and new mk2 is only little better than mk1 but lot better than the 70-200mm f2.8 non IS? I don't understand. Quoting it below:

"Optically the 70-200 has always been one of Canon's strongest performers, and this one doesn't disappoint. Compared to the MKI version in the real world of weddings, I would say that this lens is better than the MKI version in terms of CA and also the 'sharpness' of the image and resistance to flare, but whether most people would notice the difference in a 10" album print? I don't know. But I will say that compared to the non-IS 70-200 it is a significant improvement. I would also add that my MKI 70-200 has always been a stellar lens in terms of sharpness, so it has a tough act to follow."

I've shot with the 70-200/2.8 non IS once before. I can't say I was terribly impressed with its performance. But I don't know how that would compare to the 2.8IS Mk1.

bobbyz wrote in post #10695878
Haven't read the whole thing but 70-200mm f2.8 mk1 optical performer and new mk2 is only little better than mk1 but lot better than the 70-200mm f2.8 non IS? I don't understand. Quoting it below:

"Optically the 70-200 has always been one of Canon's strongest performers, and this one doesn't disappoint. Compared to the MKI version in the real world of weddings, I would say that this lens is better than the MKI version in terms of CA and also the 'sharpness' of the image and resistance to flare, but whether most people would notice the difference in a 10" album print? I don't know. But I will say that compared to the non-IS 70-200 it is a significant improvement. I would also add that my MKI 70-200 has always been a stellar lens in terms of sharpness, so it has a tough act to follow."

Simply put, the 70-200 MK II is a better performer over the Non-IS and IS MK I.

bobbyz wrote in post #10695878
Haven't read the whole thing but 70-200mm f2.8 mk1 optical performer and new mk2 is only little better than mk1 but lot better than the 70-200mm f2.8 non IS? I don't understand. Quoting it below:

"Optically the 70-200 has always been one of Canon's strongest performers, and this one doesn't disappoint. Compared to the MKI version in the real world of weddings, I would say that this lens is better than the MKI version in terms of CA and also the 'sharpness' of the image and resistance to flare, but whether most people would notice the difference in a 10" album print? I don't know. But I will say that compared to the non-IS 70-200 it is a significant improvement. I would also add that my MKI 70-200 has always been a stellar lens in terms of sharpness, so it has a tough act to follow."

jwcdds wrote in post #10695884
I've shot with the 70-200/2.8 non IS once before. I can't say I was terribly impressed with its performance. But I don't know how that would compare to the 2.8IS Mk1.

While the MK1 is a more versatile lens and had a slightly better contrast

My Non-IS was superior to the MK1 in terms of sharpness.

^ I used to own the non-IS/MK I IS and I found it to be the same optically in IQ performance. The only difference between the two was MFD, weight, and weight( IS version a tad heavier). That's it really.

If you're a day shooter the Non IS 2.8 is a mega bargain lens.

I'd should have kept it but it becomes a moot point if you have the MKII.