|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
From DPR
DPR has completed their review of the new EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.
The review is very favorable outside of their opinion of the bokeh. I didn't find it all that pleasing either.
Overall, then, the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM gains about as close as it gets to an unqualified recommendation, given the price. Its combination of exceptional optics and quirk-free design even manages to surpass Nikon's equivalent that we tested recently, stealing the crown of ‘Best in Class' by a whisker. It's a significant improvement over what was already an accomplished lens, capable of consistently delivering results that will satisfy the most demanding of users, and you can't ask for much more than that.
Read More: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/
B&H has them in stock for $2499
cr
I love this lens! Much sharper than its predecessor.
I’ve tried to find this info on here but maybe I’m just looking in the wrong places. Can anyone tell me how the CR ratings work and what they mean? In other words what’s the difference with a CR1, CR2, and CR3 rating?
Thanks everyone!
not a suprise, canon is king in making telezooms. its the wide lenses theyre lagging behind a bit.
CR1 rumor is from an uknown person and most likely not true
CR2 rumor is from a more reliable source and may not be true either
CR3 rumor is a rumor that has many chances of becoming real.
It used to be on the old blog design, it’s gone now. I think I said it good enough.
*shrug* I’ll stick with my old 70-200 f/2.8L IS. That lens still amazes me. I accept that the new lens may be even better, but I just don’t feel a need for it.
Yes and no. Canon’s 15mm fisheye is better than anything comparable from Nikon. The 16-35mm f/2.8L and 17-40mm f/4L are both great lenses. But Canon needs something to compete with Nikon’s 14-24mm full-frame zoom.
I prefer Photozone lens test. I also think the Canon one is more than 1% better than Nikon’s version. I mean no focus breathing issue and field IS is proper 4 stop compared only 3 stop in the VRII, that alone is worth more than 1% not to mention it is sharp at 70mm and right through to 200mm while VRII is actually soft at 70mm.
Awesome thanks Chio! I appreciate your time on clearing that up for me friend.
I will say the Mark II is better but the price of the Mark II is kind of obnoxious.
Maybe I should get some therapy for my buyer’s guilt? LOL
70-200 2.8L IS II is an amaZing lens. As sharp as the f4 IS, which is no mean feat.
Personally I think the bokeh is fine.
I’m tempted, and I believe what they are saying, but after having 4 of the old 70-200 2.8 lenses that were very good, but far from being excellent, I started using primes where a wider aperture was needed, and I kept my 70-200 f4L IS because it was light and easy to use. It was much sharper wide open than any of my 2.8L’s ever were.
Now, the only reason for me to buy it would be because its the newest and best. for some, thats enough, even if they do not need it.
Like I’ve been saying:
Wide angle primes: Canon
Wide angle zooms: Nikon
I’ll call the price of the new version ‘obscene.’
I have this lens and have to agree; it’s simply stunning. If the new 24-70 will show the same improvement, I’ll buy one.
Agree 100%
yeah, you could also take a look at nikons wierd bokeh with subjects that are fairly close to the in focus subject… really distracting… and far from pleasing, even a nikon fan boy friend of mine is pissed at me for pointing that out… hasn’t used it since.
You have heard about
a Nikon 24mm 1.4GED recently
and read the serious reviews?
Actually, there is no Nikkor 70-200/2.8. It’s more like 70-160mm. LULZ.
I have the old model and I found that there are situations where the bokeh is really smooth and others when it’s a bit “nervous”. The same goes for most of my lenses (except for the 50mm f/1.8, which was consistently “nervous”, so I sold it). I would expect that the Mark II would probably be no worse than the old lens if compared side-by-side.
No intention of upgrading, myself. I couldn’t justify the cost.
“I kept my 70-200 f4L IS because it was light and easy to use. It was much sharper wide open than any of my 2.8L’s ever were.”
Personally, I find the f/2.8 lens to be much sharper than the f/4 lens when both are set to f/2.8.
This puts an end to all those DPR fanbois proclaiming that the Nikkor one was better based on the theoretical MTF charts. Lulz. If anything, it just proved that Nikon has always exaggerated their MTF claims on their charts. The real world results belie their assertions.
Can you show me what’s wrong with it?
Im curious
It really is as sharp as the F4 IS, which is about as sharp as they come.
Impressive achievement.
It has very pronounced “focus breathing” that even the DPR review so it fit to devote an entire section of the review to that issue. That is not even mentioned in the Canon review, meaning it’s insignificant with the Canon.
What reviews?
How do you set the f/4 lens to f/2.8 then? :P 0wnzored. Why look for something that was clearly not advertised as included (i.e., f/2.8)?
can you show me what you mean
there must be examples if its that big
thanks
Read DPR’s review of the Nikkor version so you’d understand.
http://www.dfpro.nl/artikel/2328702/review-nikon-af-s-nikkor-24mm-f-1-4g-ed
but you’ll have to learn dutch
We all know that the 70-200’s (all versions) are about as good as they get. Version II was designed with full frame IQ in mind.
2 more zooms and 1 body to go…
I didnt mean the breating
I meant the weird bokeh
that it makes someone so influenced
by what somebody else thinks he should see
wrong in his pictures (but never saw before)
that afterwards (app. being convinced) he throws aside a +$2000,00 lens
Seriously CR Guy, why ISN’T the CR1,2,3 descriptions on every page, like it used to be? Sony Alpha Rumors has the same offense with their SRx ratings that are completely meaningless without explanation. How do either of you expect to welcome new readers?
are you sure yo are looking at the right lens?
I think you are comparing the old 70-200Nikon
with the new 70-200Canon. Look at the tabel in the review:
the one on the left is the new one
if you dont understand the joke, you dont have to post
No, it’s you who doesn’t understand, dumb0. Having no f/2.8 on the f/4 is a straw-man argument. Again, why look for something that was’t indicated to be there? Your joke is as funny as asking why the f/2.8 is not as sharp as the 85/1.2 at f/1.2. M0ron.
I can tell you’re a newbie to that lame-a$$ joke; it’s an old putdown in the DPR forums; usually uttered by owners of the old 70-200/2.8 IS who can’t accept that the 70-200/4 IS was sharper. They can’t believe that the cheaper lens had better IQ than the one they spent a lot of money on… LULZ.
Calm down oh feathered one. It was a joke.
John – I know you think you are being LULZ – but the point is that it’s an old joke, cliche, etc because it’s true. the f/4 might have been sharper but at the end of the day it let in half as much light and if you needed the light then the f/4 was going to be blurry….
there is no need to be a jerk
Oh that Canon made an EF-S 70-300 f4 with this level of performance. Carry around a 1.4x teleconverter and you have a very powerful combination with the 1.6x magnification.
Now that they have a camera like the 7D in APS-C, doesn’t this mean the EF-S series is more likely to grow? How much can an EF-S reduce weight over an EF?
Ugg.
Yeah, I can think of a couple of Nikon Fanbois on DPR forums who claimed that the main reason they switched from Canon to Nikon was how much better the Nikon 70-200 and 24-70 were than their Canon version. One of these a-holes mainly post in Canon forum attacking the 70-200 and 24-70 and hailing his D3s with only very few posts in the Nikon forum itself!
I’m waiting form them to show up talking about the new Canon 70-200, I know they will ;)
Yeah, I never bothered to buy the old 2.8LIS, even when in a low light shoot and some friends want to lend it to me as a “favor” I usually didnt like this much as my 4LIS was much sharper and i was more confident using it specially with higher ISOs. I preferred using a monopod in many concerts or low light situations to actually buying the faster 2.8LIS.
Now I have to come up with 2400 $$ :S
The second I saw this price, I felt that Canon was trying to say “aren’t there some pixel peepers out there we claim the Nikon is better? and they forget the price difference? well, ok, we’ll give you the best lens out there, and you pay or just brag your pixel peeping”
In all cases, it’s a great lens, but being more than double the price of the 4LIS version is silly, I really wanna upgrade but I cant do that now.
Specially that I’m waiting for the new 24-70 to come out, it’s my 1st on list now.
well said Stark-Arts
I’ve got my copy for a week now and am blown away by the sharpness of it. 70 all the way to 200. Bought it for slightly less then €1950,- which is a good deal imo. Now saving for 14-24 and 24-70 IS :p
No. Because the 7D afficianados (aka fanbois) dream of full frame. They’d never have anything with S on it in their glass collection.
I wish I could convince myself that every person that thinks Nikon is better is an “a-hole fanboi”, but I have more sense than that. And do you really not understand why they don’t post much on Nikon sites? They’re not trying to convince Nikon owners that Nikon is better. The preacher doesn’t need to preach to the choir.
And you’re using ad hominum attacks. If your gonna pull the logical fallicies card, don’t do it yourself. Lawlz.
Yep, make the 24-70 as good and give us a super sharp UWA.
Why are you comparing it to the f/4 version?
The old 2.8 IS version cost $1999 retail, the new one costs $2499 retail. It’s more, but not “double”.
You used a major red herring there.
I sold my 70-200mm f2.8 IS a couple of months ago because I wasn’t using it all that much but when I did use it, it was absolutely brilliant. It never let me down and I still miss it. If the Mk II was only slightly more expensive and I suddenly needed to have a 70-200 f2.8 lens then I definitely would get it. But it seems a bit much at that price, especially if you already have the amazing Mk I.
Agreed
Double agree
third. Do it Canon.
Pshhhh for 37% that amount of money, I can get 142% more quality with CanON’s 135mm f2 PRIME lens! Real men use primes only. If Jesus was a photographer, he would use primes only, AND be badass because of it. Nikoff sux.
Please, once you throw the word “fanboi” into your argument you’ve instantly neutralised yourself.
Nobody who earns a living using this equipment cares what you or anybody else thinks about that equipment.
am i supposed to trust a string bean? :)
There’s no net weight saving.
A FF sensor offers a 1 1/3 stop depth of field advantage and 1 to 2 stop ISO advantage over a crop sensor.
This means that an EFS f2.8 lens is still not as good as an EF f4 lense on a FF camera, and equivalent lenses are about the same weight.
Example : EFS 17-55 2.8 IS weighs about the same as a 24-105 f4 IS, but the 24-105 on a FF camera still has:
greater focal length range
shallower depth of field
better low light sensitivity
higher resolution sensor.
The full-frame cannot be beat by a crop sensor, even when comparing similar weight lenses. The FF has even much greater advantage when a f2.8 lens is attached.
PS … a crop camera with a f2.0 zoom (of which none are made, nor will they likely ever be made) would still not match the performance of a full-frame camera with a f2.8 zoom (of which there are many choices).
If you can afford it, Full Frame is the only way to go.
Seriously, what hast this NEWS to do with canonrumors?!
My point exactly
trust no-one. Exactly the people who are here just saying “this is better than that” without proof or having the equipment themselves to back it up. These ‘discussions’ are filled with hear say and stupid mirror talk and biased by this canon/nikon ‘war’…its getting worse than the average soccer game. People are only looking for conformation of their choice for a certain piece of equipment, and spit on others, mostly because they cannot afford it, making it childish envy most of the time.
Why didnt you say ” am i supposed to trust a string bean?” to the guys in this post stating that this is better than that? Where is their proof or survey?
At least the Dutch guy at dfpro tries to take a bit more serious. Im not saying he’s right or wrong (i own that lens, and do not fully agree even him although he rates 9.5 positive…and before you say Im a Nikon fanboy: I have Canon gear as well) but I am getting truly bored by people stating ‘knowledge’ when it originates in frustration, hear say, bluff, this stupid N/C war, boredom or pretending to be a camera buff.
It does more harm than good.
Just look at the DPR review they have samples. its not weird, just not as smooth as it could be. Still fine though. Noone would throw that lens away based on that.
lol?
I do!
I couldn’t agree with you more about the Mk I. Well said.
I find this amusing, your post is also filled with peremptory accusations/judgments with little to no merit or evidence against what you were originally trying to make a case of.
This is a comment/forum area, don’t expect lengthy research/comparison article within individual posts that are filled with citations/diagrams to numerous links to point you towards an answer. If it bores you so much, simply ignore it and save yourself the trouble from getting all worked up on spending time on writing up a lengthy post.
Unless you want more DOF that is. ;)
Yes! Triple agree.
I didn’t say it to them because they aren’t calling themselves a string bean. It was a joke though (hence the smiley at the end). Sorry if I got the translation wrong – I know very little Dutch (my girlfriend is Dutch, and she kindly translated the review you posted here).
I do agree with you that lots of the arguments on here are rather childish fanboy banter, but I find it relatively easy to sort through this to the useful information by people that take photography seriously like I do.
That said, you know lots of people write things on here just to get a reaction. The internet makes this all too easy because of the promise of anonymity. You just have to accept this.
What “lol”?
What has a news about a lensreview to do with canon RUMORS?
Or is this lens not out yet?
@Preston: very sorry if I didnt get that joke, that must be the language barrier..I dont know the equivalent in Dutch Im afraid. Only thing I can think of is “rare snijboon’ (ask your gf). Thank you for understanding and I know I have to accept the general BS, but doesnt mean I cant try to bring utter nonsense out to the open sometimes. Too many people do take it serious and that is how false rumors start. A lost cause, I know, but there should be a BS-flag next to posts that deserve it, which brings me to:
@DC: I must have bitten you on a spot where it hurts.
@preston
Oh, wait…
Now I get it, sorry..you were referring to my name..stupid.
I thought you were referring to the guy who wrote the review. Funny. Excuse my Dutch sense of humor.
Full Frame beats crop even in generating deep depth of field. The pixel density on a crop sensor like the 7D causes resolution loss due to diffraction beginning around f8.
The canon 5DII can be safely set at f16 and above without significant degradation due to diffraction. It achieves better color, better sensitivity and both better shallow and deep depth of field performance.
The only penalties to FF are slower performance (compared to 7D), and higher price. The 5DII wins in every other way.
Canon put the predecessor on discontinued?! Since the differences are not that remarkable (at least not $600 remarkable) I guess we all should get one really quick!
http://www.canon.com.hk/en/consumer/product/discontinued.aspx?series_id=41
Haha, yea. Glad you got it now. And the BS flag would be great!
Whadaya say admin? instead of short-lived “like/dislike” to the comments, just a bs flag. and it doesn’t have to erase the post if there are too many bs confirmations. it just lets people know that the information is not useful and may actually be incorrect.
Are you paying for access to this site? Didn’t think so, so quit whining that it isn’t exactly tailored to your wants.
What on earth is a “nervous” bokeh? Does it sit in the corner chewing its fingernails?
Nikon: 14-24, 16-35
Canon: 15 fisheye, 17 tse, 24 tse II, 35mm 1.4
Me too — the 10-22, the 17-55/2.8 and the 60 macro are excellent lenses. Even if they are EF-S. Probably because they are…
That’s cool. People who actually earn money with their work use zooms.
Keep jerking off to your test charts.
To me it’s worth the $600 more. But YMMV.
You know what goes well with whine? Cheese.
The 7D is 18MP and the defraction problem is blown out of proportion slightly I think.
Anyway, sometimes you want speed and more DOF (sports) not everyone is a portrait/landscape photographer.
Diffraction not defraction, sorry iPhone auto spell thingy got me.
Etienne,
You really think the 5d mk II is every bit better than a 7d other than frame rate?
Don’t get me wrong, I like the 7D, and I may buy one as well. It is a great camera.
Speed is important, and not just for sports. There’s nothing more frustrating than watching a great shot get away from you because the camera isn’t ready, even in the studio.
My ideal camera would be a full frame sensor in a 7D body, and maybe that will come with the 5D markIII.
I have the 5DII, but I would also be very happy with a 7D. I just don’t want to give up the ability to go to shallow depth of field, to make full use of FF lenses, and the better low light performance.
Bottom line is I think Canon has a killer line-up of bodies right now, and I hope the 5D III gets better AF. If it doesn’t I’ll probably buy a 7D to go with my 5DII.
7D is faster, more accurate focus etc, and that is definitely NOT a small issue. I hate watching a good shot pass me by because the camera is not ready. Do not underestimate this.
5DII just has great image quality, better control of DOF, and makes full use of your FF lenses.
There’s no perfect camera. I truly like the 7D too, but they are different. The main reason I wouldn’t buy a rebel is ergonomics. The 7D/5D are much easier to use, if you tend to use most of the features.
Sure, it is not a paysite but again, it isn’t ad-free site either. Site owner chose to display ads instead of charging the visitors. If you dont understand hoktar’s question, ask for clarification or better read it twice
I agree, but there still are times when (say) f/2.8 speed and a deeper DOF are handy. Hence the greatness (IMHO) of the 1.3 crop for sports.
It’s not a real question. He’s using retorical questions to have a good ol’ whinge.
I’d take an APS-H 7D any day, but I can’t justify $5000 for a 1D.
You can find samples pictures here :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/djenuwine/
I love this lens!
Just before the MK II was release you could have bought the MK I for $1600 to $1700 with free shipping. If you figure it that way then the new model is $800 to $900 dollar more. While the new model might be a little better than the old one, there is no way it’s worth that much extra money. A better way to play this Canon game would be to buy the MK I while you still can and invest the difference in Canon stock. Surely Canon stands to make out well once the inventory of the MK I is depleted. Pros and advanced amateurs will then have no choice but to spend the extra cash on the MK II.
That’s what I meant : )