Prior to purchasing the mark II 70-200mm canon lens, I own and have experience with the canon 200mm 2.0L, 300mm 2.8L and the Mark I version of the 70-200mm canon lens and yes - they are amazing. After reading the rave reviews on this new lens, I was sold on upgrading my Mark I lens with this new version. Unfortunately I am not as pleased as some of the other reviewers. It's a nice lens and has benefits, but it is not the ultimate lens as some reviews suggest.
Foto Nunta Brasov | Fotograf Nunta | Foto video nunta
Bad copy/bad body-lens combo perhaps? Mine is as sharp as 100L macro (and that is one sharp lens), never complained about sharpness with this white marvel...
There is quite the epic difference between the 100 L and 200 f2 and the other super tele.
I think you're disappointed because you are comparing the 70-200 to a lens that costs 2.5x the money and that the 70-200, at least of the 4 copies I have had, was weakest at 200mm where the 200 f2 is by far the worlds best.
I had the 70-200 and the 200 f2 at the same time, and while it's a fantastic zoom lens, it got sold because of the 200mm. And I have always said , buy the focal you need not the IQ you want, but for me I can live with running a bit more back and forth with the 200 than buy yet another 70-200.
I just have to add I was never disappointed with the 70-200, the IQ and the AF and small size and weight was REALLY good. But it's just not in the same league as the 200 f2. It lacks that wide open magic. People keep telling me you can get the 135 f2, the 200 f2.8 or a 70-200 for a fraction. As often as I can I lend them my 200 for 5 shots, they always say the same, mind blown, I get it now, you've made the right choice.