70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM vs IS II

[mbworldz]

I was at the Pro Photo Expo in Pasadena Saturday.  At the Canon booth they had the 1DX demo.  I also ask the canon rep about the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, he said its like nite and day.   But when I mount my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM  on the 1DX, took couple pictures and then swap the new IS II version on the 1DX.  They both look little similar.  Whats your feedback?   Does it worth to upgrade to the IS II ?

[bdunbar79]

There are subtle differences.  The version II is sharper at all apertures and is lighter.  That's about it.

[K-amps]

There are subtle differences.  The version II is sharper at all apertures and is lighter.  That's about it.

Guys that have Mark I or even the F4 version, don't know what they are missing. Can't say this enough.

[bdunbar79]

There are subtle differences.  The version II is sharper at all apertures and is lighter.  That's about it.

Guys that have Mark I or even the F4 version, don't know what they are missing. Can't say this enough.

I haven't shot with the mark I, but comparing other photos, I cannot see a difference, if any I guess.  Is it signficantly sharper?

[Richard Lane]

I haven't used the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS version I, but I can tell you that version II is one of my favorite lenses and it's probably one of the best zooms ever produced.  It's fast, sharp, and produces a beautiful bokeh.

According to the ISO crops, the differences are more noticeable at the extreme ends of the zoom, namely @70mm, and @200mm, and also with the 1.4X attached (the 2X isn't that great on either lens, but it's atrocious on Version I.)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Rich

[JoeDavid]

I had the version I and was never particularly impressed by the sharpness.  It's main selling point was the f2.8 constant maximum aperture and IS.  The version II is very sharp for a zoom and the IS improvement is significant as well.

[Wilmark]

This has to be one of the best reasons why I will not switch to nikon. If you don't believe it, the Canadian wedding photogs did a review using the 1dx and the d4. And the 70-200 mkII is one of the reasons they changed to canon. And this is comparing it the the best nikon 70-200. i have 5 L's and and 75% of my shots are on this lens. This was my first L and boy did that create a problem!

[ScottyP]

Were you looking at the image on a big monitor and blowing it up/cropping it, or were you just chimping on the camera screen?

[JPL_1020]

I was at the Pro Photo Expo in Pasadena Saturday.  At the Canon booth they had the 1DX demo.  I also ask the canon rep about the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, he said its like nite and day.   But when I mount my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM  on the 1DX, took couple pictures and then swap the new IS II version on the 1DX.  They both look little similar.  Whats your feedback?   Does it worth to upgrade to the IS II ?

Read this review... http://www.prophotoshow.net/2010/03/12/canon-70-200-2-8-is-2-review-v1-v2-compared/

 It's just one of the many out there. But the over all improvement from version 1 is significant.

[Menace]

I went from the 70-200 f4 non IS to this lens and the difference is stunning.

I almost always shoot wide open (unless in the studio) and the sharpness at f2.8 for a zoom is simply amazing. Took a little time to get used to the extra weight but having an RS7 helps.

My favorite lens   

[K-amps]

There are subtle differences.  The version II is sharper at all apertures and is lighter.  That's about it.

Guys that have Mark I or even the F4 version, don't know what they are missing. Can't say this enough.

I haven't shot with the mark I, but comparing other photos, I cannot see a difference, if any I guess.  Is it signficantly sharper?

Yes it is sharp, but that's not the whole story. It makes colors pop, bokeh is beautiful, AF is fast but most importantly it has an unexplained magical quality that renders shots so well it's hard to explain. I struggled with its price for many months but now that I have it, it will be the last L lens to go and it's is the reason I am with canon.

The V2 also is brighter, lets more light in... this means quicker shutter speeds/less noise/lower ISO'd needed and ability to get more keepers in lower light. Some say it is 1/3rd stop brighter... effectively making it an f/2.5 lens (compared to mk.1)

The difference between the mk.ii and the f4 is like wearing silk pajamas vs polyester, they both do the job, but one does a great job.

[Studio1930]

I owned two copies of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS v1 and then bought the new v2.  The v2 was quite a bit sharper at all apertures than either of my v1 lenses.  I have sold both of my v1 lenses since they really couldn't compare to my new v2 lens.  Yes, there is a big difference.

[Mick]

I am the worlds biggest doubter of new is better than old. I am also as tight as a camels backside in a sandstorm when it comes to buying a new lens. The price of the old MKI IS is at its height so i got a good offer and sold it. Had it 3 years never lost a penny. Anyway, bought the new one used but mint. Well, it looks the same, is the same colour and has Canon painted on it. Thats the limit of the similarities. I can honestly say im totally amazed at it. The IS is 4 stops. I just cant get used to shooting at 200mm and getting keepers at slow shutter speeds, hand held. It worked in a rain storm when the camera, a 1D4 packed in but above all like the other guys said, the colours and tones are amazing, crisp and accurate. Its almost, and im splitting hairs here, almost as sharp as makes no diferance to my 85mm prime. Its autofocus on a pro body is laser fast. Is it sharper than a mk 1 No when stopped down but wide open, yes and you can tell which is more important.

Mate, its worth every penny. It really is that good. But its no better than the 70-300 IS L which is smaller, lighter, longer and just as well built but looses a couple of stops of light. And you cant use extenders.

Mick

[Razor2012]

There are subtle differences.  The version II is sharper at all apertures and is lighter.  That's about it.

Guys that have Mark I or even the F4 version, don't know what they are missing. Can't say this enough.

I haven't shot with the mark I, but comparing other photos, I cannot see a difference, if any I guess.  Is it signficantly sharper?

Yes it is sharp, but that's not the whole story. It makes colors pop, bokeh is beautiful, AF is fast but most importantly it has an unexplained magical quality that renders shots so well it's hard to explain. I struggled with its price for many months but now that I have it, it will be the last L lens to go and it's is the reason I am with canon.

The V2 also is brighter, lets more light in... this means quicker shutter speeds/less noise/lower ISO'd needed and ability to get more keepers in lower light. Some say it is 1/3rd stop brighter... effectively making it an f/2.5 lens (compared to mk.1)

The difference between the mk.ii and the f4 is like wearing silk pajamas vs polyester, they both do the job, but one does a great job.

Heh, personally I would say it's like wearing silk pj's or none at all.