It seems that my birthday is around the corner.. The only thing I want for my birthday is a new lens. I have been contemplating if a 70-200 f2.8 ii is going to be what I want. I have heard great reviews on it and I have been doing much side by side research on the two lenses. I was wondering if anyone has either the older version or the newest version and just give me personal opinions, facts or general knowledge before I make a decision. Ill be using the lens for portraits mainly. I shoot with a 5D 3 if that helps narrow down any information. Thank you everyone
70-200 f2.8ii or i
- Thread starter soybeanpapi
- Start date
I had mrk I in the past, awesome lens. The only reason I upgraded to mrk II because BH had crazzzy sale during 2011 X-mas($400 off). Sold my mrk I and spent another $300 more for mrk II.
If budget is not an issue, mrk II is faster and sharper wide open. Mrk I is not too far behind, still a great lens.
If budget is not an issue, mrk II is faster and sharper wide open. Mrk I is not too far behind, still a great lens.
Upvote
0
Thanks Dylan777! Its not the fact that money is or is not the issue, I just want the best quality for my use. Im also trying to decide how good is good. Thank you for the insight.
Upvote
0
I have never used the mark I, but the ii is probably my most used lens along with a couple of big whites.
The latest version of anything is nearly always going to be better, whether it be in weight, weather sealing, AF or some other aspect of what it is you are buying.
If you can afford it, I would definitely go with the Mark ii if you can.
What will you be using it for?
The latest version of anything is nearly always going to be better, whether it be in weight, weather sealing, AF or some other aspect of what it is you are buying.
If you can afford it, I would definitely go with the Mark ii if you can.
What will you be using it for?
Upvote
0
The mkII's most improved features is the much improved MFD, along with much better performance with the new mkIII extenders imo.
If neither of those mean anything to you, pick up the awesome mkI and save yourself some coin!
If neither of those mean anything to you, pick up the awesome mkI and save yourself some coin!
Upvote
0
You will not go wrong with either one. For portraits, unless you are enlarging the prints to huge dimensions, you probably will not see much of a difference. For peace of mind, if the money difference is not a major factor, get the MkII. It will last you for decades, well beyond your current body.
Upvote
0
photo212 said:
+1 this is so very true, I have the 70-200 2.8 usm so I guess I don't know what to call it since it's not the mark I but I love my 70-200 so much I couldn't imagine how much better the mark II is but it's your money and bday. Like the post I quoted stated you can't go wrong with the piece of mind having the best! It's certainly a chunk of change but well spent for sure.
Upvote
0
I had the mk I. Excellent lens, but if you don't stop it down to f4 or smaller, the micro contrast and detail is very disappointing, unless you only view the images on a small screen or print small.
After some time of using the lens, and getting frustrated by this, I started wondering why I didn't just have the f4 IS version - slightly sharper at f4, half the weight, and at the time, half the price. Plus it would be a perfect way to avoid Tv mode selecting a detail destroying aperture.
Anyway, I've upgraded to the mk II, and the differences I've noticed are dramatically improved wide open sharpness, even more dramatic improvement with TC's, and the IS is much more effective. Other than that it's the same bullet proof construction and exemplary handling.
Having owned the mk II, I wouldn't dream of going back to the mk I.
After some time of using the lens, and getting frustrated by this, I started wondering why I didn't just have the f4 IS version - slightly sharper at f4, half the weight, and at the time, half the price. Plus it would be a perfect way to avoid Tv mode selecting a detail destroying aperture.
Anyway, I've upgraded to the mk II, and the differences I've noticed are dramatically improved wide open sharpness, even more dramatic improvement with TC's, and the IS is much more effective. Other than that it's the same bullet proof construction and exemplary handling.
Having owned the mk II, I wouldn't dream of going back to the mk I.
Upvote
0
Regarding IQ, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is best, the 70-200 f/4L IS is 2nd best, and then the 70-200 f/2.8L I lens. It is a very good lens.
Upvote
0
This is one of the few clear cut cases where the new lens is a huge improvement. The NON IS model is very good, but I had 4 of the IS ver I lenses and sold them all, they were all weak near 200mm, and with TC's, they were getting pretty ugly at 200mm.
Go for the MK II.
Go for the MK II.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
+1
Absolutely spot on. Was amazed at how people used to unconditionally praise the mrk 1 when by far most shots with such a lens tend to be taken at the very long end which is its weak spot. Also agree when it comes to the high quality of the non-IS which continues to be an amazing value option. If money is a question consider the f/4 IS L - every bit as sharp as the f/2.8 IS L II, just not going as wide open.
Good luck with your choice.
Upvote
0
+1 from me as well.
I owned the NON-IS 70-200mm f/2.8L for a decade and I was very happy with that lens, it really was razor sharp at 100%. I had tested the IS version (Mk I) that was released at that time and although the IS was a great addition, the IQ had suffered on that lens. I looked at several Mk I IS versions and none of them could stack up against my older non-IS version.
Fast forward, the MkII IS is released and gets rave reviews so I decided to shell out and get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II from B&H.
I tell you, if my non-IS lens was great than the Mk II IS is AMAZING. In every side-by-side comparison, the II had a distinctive edge over my non-IS 70-200mm. The difference was especially noticeable wide-open. And then I haven't even mentioned the latest generation IS on this lens - which is awesome. So I sold the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS to a friend and I am certain the II will have a spot in my bag for another decade or so to come.
In this particular case, I can only say - yes it is more expensive but if you see yourself using this lens frequently, buying the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is the most sensible thing you can do.
I owned the NON-IS 70-200mm f/2.8L for a decade and I was very happy with that lens, it really was razor sharp at 100%. I had tested the IS version (Mk I) that was released at that time and although the IS was a great addition, the IQ had suffered on that lens. I looked at several Mk I IS versions and none of them could stack up against my older non-IS version.
Fast forward, the MkII IS is released and gets rave reviews so I decided to shell out and get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II from B&H.
I tell you, if my non-IS lens was great than the Mk II IS is AMAZING. In every side-by-side comparison, the II had a distinctive edge over my non-IS 70-200mm. The difference was especially noticeable wide-open. And then I haven't even mentioned the latest generation IS on this lens - which is awesome. So I sold the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS to a friend and I am certain the II will have a spot in my bag for another decade or so to come.
In this particular case, I can only say - yes it is more expensive but if you see yourself using this lens frequently, buying the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is the most sensible thing you can do.
Upvote
0
As someone else who just upgraded from the Mark I to Mark II I have to support the its so much better perspective.
My past experience with this lens (mark I) was mixed. I was initially using it with a 5D mark II and had a lot of not quite in focus shots and it fell out of favour really as difficult at f2.8 to use and I used an f4 version which is a lot lighter and smaller non IS).
Totally different story on the 5D mark III and its always with me, the Mark II version is just better and needs a lot less sharpening in post processing and f2.8 is great for portrait style.
I almost didn't do the upgrade as the DxOMark ratings say they are almost the same mark I and II, well they got that very wrong IMHO.
My past experience with this lens (mark I) was mixed. I was initially using it with a 5D mark II and had a lot of not quite in focus shots and it fell out of favour really as difficult at f2.8 to use and I used an f4 version which is a lot lighter and smaller non IS).
Totally different story on the 5D mark III and its always with me, the Mark II version is just better and needs a lot less sharpening in post processing and f2.8 is great for portrait style.
I almost didn't do the upgrade as the DxOMark ratings say they are almost the same mark I and II, well they got that very wrong IMHO.
Upvote
0
With the Mark II you'll never go wrong, it is a fast, sharp and accurate lens. It is faster and sharper than the version I and, for additional information it works better with teleconverters (1.4X & 2X). If money doesn't matter then get it and enjoy shooting. Otherwise I suggest try the latest Tamron version with VC, which is just slightly less sharp than the Canon Mark II and sharper than Canon Mark I.soybeanpapi said:
I also shoot with 5D3 BTW.
Upvote
0
I've owned both and used both on the 5D2 and 5d3. No contest that the MK2 lens is the one you want on the 5d3. The MK2 lenses have been optimized for the 5d3 and 1dx bodies. The difference in AF accuracy alone makes the cost difference worth it. I'm also a portrait shooter and stay at f2.8 pretty much all the time. Night and day difference between these 2 lenses on the 5d3.
Upvote
0
Thank you everyone for the feedback! I really appreciate it. I plan on doing a bulk load of portraits within the incoming fall months. Everything you guys and ladies said will be taken into consideration. Any thoughts on refurbished models?
Upvote
0
Hjalmarg1 said:
thanks for the advice! I am going to rent the lens first and take it from there.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
