70-200 MK II Review by Jeff Ascough

jdizzle wrote in post #10697128
Simply put, the 70-200 MK II is a better performer over the Non-IS and IS MK I.

It better be for that price but he is saying not much difference between mk1 and mk2 IS models but lot more between mk2 IS and non IS one.

The non IS one was always much sharper than the IS one to begin with. Now with mk2 maybe canon bring IS one to the non IS or the f4 IS level.

My only complaint about my 70-200 mkII is that it makes my 17-55 look dull in comparison. =)

bobbyz wrote in post #10697667
It better be for that price but he is saying not much difference between mk1 and mk2 IS models but lot more between mk2 IS and non IS one.

The non IS one was always much sharper than the IS one to begin with. Now with mk2 maybe canon bring IS one to the non IS or the f4 IS level.

I suggest trying out the MK II if you ever the get the chance. SOOC images are sharp to begin with and CA is nill.

Here's a sample of SOOC with no adjustments. Sharp! Bw this is shot wide open.

The Nat-Geo yellow rectangle is OOF!

*covers ears* lalallalaalalalalalala​la

I wonder if 6.5 month old is too young to start my son in peewee sports.

jwcdds wrote in post #10697911
The Nat-Geo yellow rectangle is OOF!

*covers ears* lalallalaalalalalalala​la

I wonder if 6.5 month old is too young to start my son in peewee sports.

Hehe! I focused on Galen Rowell.

Yeah, I'm pretending "Galen Rowell" is not even on the photo. The lens was... um... front focusing! Ha!

There's gotta be some peewee sports for my son that I can sign up.

jwcdds wrote in post #10697935
Yeah, I'm pretending "Galen Rowell" is not even on the photo. The lens was... um... front focusing! Ha!

There's gotta be some peewee sports for my son that I can sign up.

Ahhh.. Making a reason/excuse to buy the lens.

plan to upgrade next year

mikejet wrote in post #10698141
plan to upgrade next year

It's a great lens. I can't praise it enough.

i like mine, mk1 was a good lens but i like the mk2 much better,prime like sharpness wide open

i just got a mk2 2.8 is and i dunno if i got a problem or not (might just be being dim)

its super sharp at 70 and after that it just gets a bit soft or blured and stuff in the distance it almost looks like its 2 images very slightly overlapping ,the is really dosn't seem to help and i dont think its a prob with me moving too much because the shutter speeds are like 500 plus.

but like i said it might just be me.

but the main thing is it was expensive and i really just dont know whats going on

would help if you post sample pics.

jwcdds wrote in post #10697911
The Nat-Geo yellow rectangle is OOF!

*covers ears* lalallalaalalalalalala​la

I wonder if 6.5 month old is too young to start my son in peewee sports.

Yes that is too young, BUT it gives you more time to practice with the lens and get the hang of it better get it now

Got the 100-400 already. I'll just make sure to shoot my boy at 400mm all the time. Then it would be similar (though not equal) to the 7-2/2.8II + 2xTC.

As I'm looking around... it's really... REALLY hard for me to justify the purchase of the 70-200/2.8II. But I s'pose if there comes a day where money's just flowing out of my ears, suuuuure, why not.