Bokeh quality of 70-200/2.8 IS versions (I vs II) ?

I've heard contrasting opinions about the subject.

The lens design has changed quite a bit, so I wonder if anyone here has compared side-by-side bokeh quality of the two lenses.
Do you think there is a noticeable difference ? If yes, in which conditions ?

Thanks in advance !

I don't think i still have my test shots, but in the ones I took the original had slightly more pleasing bokeh. That said, everything about the mk II was so much better that it was a non-issue. The bokeh was very close.

I can't tell the difference. All I can tell is that the area in focus is much sharper.

Thanks

No real difference.

I have never really noticed any objectionable Bokeh with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but this one time I wondered if it looked too busy. It may be due to the type of background. What do you guys think?


7D 1/3200 f/2.8 ISO 100 @200mm

First one looks a little busy

basically no difference to me.

First one certainly doesn't have the nicest bokeh, distracting enough to grab my attention. Though to be a fair a tighter shot to start with would probably help in that particular shot.

A lot of zooms (even very good ones) seem to struggle with certain difficult scenarios, and the only way to cope is with a nice prime. Would be very interested to see someone take a similar shot like that with both that lens and the 200 F/2.8.

phreeky wrote in post #11122590
First one certainly doesn't have the nicest bokeh, distracting enough to grab my attention. Though to be a fair a tighter shot to start with would probably help in that particular shot.

A lot of zooms (even very good ones) seem to struggle with certain difficult scenarios, and the only way to cope is with a nice prime. Would be very interested to see someone take a similar shot like that with both that lens and the 200 F/2.8.

The 200 is one that I was thinking of buying along with teh 135 instead of the MKII but I have to agree the 200 is so creamy looking

msowsun wrote in post #11122213
I have never really noticed any objectionable Bokeh with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but this one time I wondered if it looked too busy. It may be due to the type of background. What do you guys think?


7D 1/3200 f/2.8 ISO 100 @200mm
http://i2.photobucket.​com …/Photo4/IMG_666​5_1024.jpg

I've always kind of held my tongue about this questionable bokeh under certain circumstances with the 70-200/II. I figured, heck, it's a $2400 lens and if it's sharp, fast in focus, and the IS works well... who am I to say something negative about the bokeh. I wouldn't mind having the lens myself.

But you're right, whenever there's some foliage (leaves or grass), the bokeh gets really busy. Oh well, can't have it all. I wonder if the 70-200/2.8IS was this way too (under those conditions).

This was a test shot taken earlier today with the MKII 200mm F2.8 on a 5DII

^ Hm... but it looks fantastic there. Jekyll & Hyde kind of lens for bokeh?

Beyond a certain level of OOF, it's fine. I haven't tried it with more in focus leaves/trees but a lot of lenses have problems with that.

bohdank wrote in post #11122960
Beyond a certain level of OOF, it's fine. I haven't tried it with more in focus leaves/trees but a lot of lenses have problems with that.

Yeah, I've seen it on the 17-55 before (I think), and I thought I saw it on some Siggy 50's as well. I suppose it only rears its head within a certain range of OOF as you noted.