70-200 f2.8ii or i

[Aglet]

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.

I had the non-IS, OK
had the IS v1, OK at the short end and very soft at the long end.*
sold it, got the v2, very nice and sharp, some CA in FF corners.
Found v2 could render some absolutely hideous bokeh at times, too often for my liking, so sold it too. Busy backgrounds that were near the transition zone could look aweful, not like the smoother rendering of other lenses. That can be the price you pay for a well-corrected lens.

I prefer the overall image balance I get from am older Tamron, pre VC model. The newest Tamron is pretty decent for the $ if you don't need the toughness or caché of the big white piece of pipe. What you save there allows you to buy their 24-70/2.8 VC also.
It really depends on what you need the lens to do. There's more to consider than just sharpness or how effective the stabilization is or how much CA there is.

* Turned out my v1 was not so much soft at the long end as front focusing quite badly at greater subject distances. Discovered that when MF'd images at 200mm were considerably sharper than AF shots.

 

[Grumbaki]

Even tho I never used the Mk1, a big +1 for Mk2.

I recently purchased the x2MK3 and tested in in a 7 rugby tournament. Everything crisp even at 400mm. furthermore, way better AF than what I expected. I was along the sideline, the wingback of one of the teams was mighty fast and AF did a very good job locking him when he was running "at me". Good stuff.

From what I heard it would have been a whole different experience with a mk1!

I'll try to post a link when I get a chance to fire up a VPN (damn great firewall).

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Either the 70-200mm f2.8 LIS mkII or the 70-200mm f4 LIS are pretty much as good as it gets in the optical long zoom category. Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.

 

[drolo61]

I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
Although pretty much razor sharp, sometimes the 4 did limit my exposure time - I know ...this is post-hoc rationalizing for GAS
I really see a difference in autofocus performance on my 5D3, and I can make good use of the additional weight for training purpose...

Bottom line: If IQ is your driver, 4 will get you there. If weight and shooting time per day may be a limiting factor, don't go for the 2,8. It is substantially heavier more than double the weight and very obvious (no really for candid portraits)

If you are strong and committed to weight lifting -go for it, it is sooo cool...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
Although pretty much razor sharp, sometimes the 4 did limit my exposure time - I know ...this is post-hoc rationalizing for GAS
I really see a difference in autofocus performance on my 5D3, and I can make good use of the additional weight for training purpose...

Bottom line: If IQ is your driver, 4 will get you there. If weight and shooting time per day may be a limiting factor, don't go for the 2,8. It is substantially heavier more than double the weight and very obvious (no really for candid portraits)

If you are strong and committed to weight lifting -go for it, it is sooo cool...

Yep, optically there is little between them too.

 

[Aglet]

..Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.

uhmmm.. the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR may not be pro quality build but it's optically quite a good performer and is, for example, one of the better lenses to use on a D800e for maximum resolution.

So there's one.

And the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC is no slouch either, turning in a similarly good performance.
That's 2 other options or at least one if you want an EF mount.

 

[rs]

..Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.

uhmmm.. the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR may not be pro quality build but it's optically quite a good performer and is, for example, one of the better lenses to use on a D800e for maximum resolution.

So there's one.

And the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC is no slouch either, turning in a similarly good performance.
That's 2 other options or at least one if you want an EF mount.

Current generation FF bodies are unable to differentiate the Canon 70-200 II and Tamron 70-200 VC lenses by much of a margin. But if you compare these lenses with TC's fitted, that small gap in performance opens up to a huge void.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=833&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

 

[GMCPhotographics]

..Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.

uhmmm.. the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR may not be pro quality build but it's optically quite a good performer and is, for example, one of the better lenses to use on a D800e for maximum resolution.

So there's one.

And the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC is no slouch either, turning in a similarly good performance.
That's 2 other options or at least one if you want an EF mount.

As I said, there is no direct equal for either lens. While the Nikon version is a match optically, it's build and application are not Pro build. As I said many times before, there is more to a lens than it's optics. Just becuase Nikon have made a lens with the same optical formula, it doesn't make it the same lens.

 

[Grumbaki]

I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
Although pretty much razor sharp, sometimes the 4 did limit my exposure time - I know ...this is post-hoc rationalizing for GAS
I really see a difference in autofocus performance on my 5D3, and I can make good use of the additional weight for training purpose...

Bottom line: If IQ is your driver, 4 will get you there. If weight and shooting time per day may be a limiting factor, don't go for the 2,8. It is substantially heavier more than double the weight and very obvious (no really for candid portraits)

If you are strong and committed to weight lifting -go for it, it is sooo cool...

With the 4 you have no room for extender. It's f8 and bump iso or f8+ and MF. 2.8 leave you much more headroom.

The faculty to be useable with a x1.4 or x2 is a point to consider (what's not to love in a good 140-400 f5.6 for 400 bucks? -once you already have the lens that is-)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
Although pretty much razor sharp, sometimes the 4 did limit my exposure time - I know ...this is post-hoc rationalizing for GAS
I really see a difference in autofocus performance on my 5D3, and I can make good use of the additional weight for training purpose...

Bottom line: If IQ is your driver, 4 will get you there. If weight and shooting time per day may be a limiting factor, don't go for the 2,8. It is substantially heavier more than double the weight and very obvious (no really for candid portraits)

If you are strong and committed to weight lifting -go for it, it is sooo cool...

With the 4 you have no room for extender. It's f8 and bump iso or f8+ and MF. 2.8 leave you much more headroom.

The faculty to be useable with a x1.4 or x2 is a point to consider (what's not to love in a good 140-400 f5.6 for 400 bucks? -once you already have the lens that is-)

I've used a 70-200 f4 LIS with a 1.4x many times. It becomes an effective 100-300 f5.6 LIS with simular optical charectoristics to the new 70-300 f5.6 LIS. Sure, if you want to use a 2x tc you will need a 5DIII or 1Dx and only the centre points will work....but even with the f2.8 LIS II version, the 2x is pushing it a bit and the AF is pretty slow and ponderous.

 

[Grumbaki]

I've used a 70-200 f4 LIS with a 1.4x many times. It becomes an effective 100-300 f5.6 LIS with simular optical charectoristics to the new 70-300 f5.6 LIS. Sure, if you want to use a 2x tc you will need a 5DIII or 1Dx and only the centre points will work....but even with the f2.8 LIS II version, the 2x is pushing it a bit and the AF is pretty slow and ponderous.

Never used the 1.4, didn't remember the aperture reduction was lower. Thanks for the reminder.

of course I never used a true big white to compare but I was very pleasantly suprised by both AF and IQ during a recent outing (rugby game, sideline, fast wingbacks coming at me). Clearly didn't fail me.

 

[Northstar]

Mark I vs mark ii....mark ii much sharper, which comes in handy when cropping.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I've used a 70-200 f4 LIS with a 1.4x many times. It becomes an effective 100-300 f5.6 LIS with simular optical charectoristics to the new 70-300 f5.6 LIS. Sure, if you want to use a 2x tc you will need a 5DIII or 1Dx and only the centre points will work....but even with the f2.8 LIS II version, the 2x is pushing it a bit and the AF is pretty slow and ponderous.

Never used the 1.4, didn't remember the aperture reduction was lower. Thanks for the reminder.

of course I never used a true big white to compare but I was very pleasantly suprised by both AF and IQ during a recent outing (rugby game, sideline, fast wingbacks coming at me). Clearly didn't fail me.

I recently compared my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II with a mkII 2x teleconverter with a 100-400 f5.6 IS L. The IQ was very good from both lenses. The 70-200 combo has more vignetting and softer corners. It was heavier and more unweildy too. Slightly longer focal length too. The IS usnit was clearly superior and the AF was a tad faster, which really suprised me. It's an effetive combo, but compared to the 400mm f5.6 L there is little comparison. The prime is sharper, less vignetting, CA etc, it's AF is snappier, faster and more accurate. It was far far lighter and a lot easier to use...but slightly less versatile.

It would be awsome if Canon can make a 70-400mm which has the IQ and AF speed of the native 70-200 f2.8 LIS II.

 

[Grumbaki]

No worries GMC, we agree, I just wanted to moderate the very negative overtone of your previous post.

Of course extenders are not as good as native primes. But for the hobbyist that will never buy a 400 better than that, having better results/possibilities with extenders are something to take into consideration too. That's all

 

[K-amps]

It's a no brainer... get the Mk.II.

I am not a pro, I am not rich, and if Canon had priced the Mk.ii at $4000, I'd still get it, its that good.

It's one of those lenses that steps up the quality of your work... no easy way to describe it...

It is just one amazing lens!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

No worries GMC, we agree, I just wanted to moderate the very negative overtone of your previous post.

Of course extenders are not as good as native primes. But for the hobbyist that will never buy a 400 better than that, having better results/possibilities with extenders are something to take into consideration too. That's all

Sorry if you felt my reply was negative, it usually quite factual which can voice as a bit cold on forums. No offence were intended or implied and i'm quite freindly really. The 400 f5.6L is a very cost consious lens and very capable too. It lacks a close MFD and IS system but optically and from an AF point of view, it's a fantastic lens which often gets over looked.

Just to push the conversation on a bit. The 1.4x TC on the f2.8 II L version is interesting too, it pretty much negates the need for the 300mm f4 LIS. The combo is just as sharp, AF is just as good, it's IS is superior and it zooms too.

 

[krjc]

Just did the upgrade from the Mark l to the Mark ll, bottom line if you can afford it, get the ll, if you can't work and save up for it. Well worth it. Sharpness and AF speed/accuracy for me made it worth it.

 

[Northstar]

Just did the upgrade from the Mark l to the Mark ll, bottom line if you can afford it, get the ll, if you can't work and save up for it. Well worth it. Sharpness and AF speed/accuracy for me made it worth it.

One word...yep.

 

[fotonunta]

Ultra sharp -deliciously rich contrast !

Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Zoom, more than likely, is Canon's sharpest lens that Canon is offering today !

Currently, I shoot with my dated EOS 5D Mark II and when this lens is attached to it, this lens is used for most all situations needed ~ which include: Portraiture, Landscapes, and for Semi-Macro needs as well.. There is hardly anything that this lens cannot do !!!!

This lens makes one feel as if he or she has a precision piece of combined glass elements in their hands and there is nothing about this lens, when Canon had designed it, that had been overlooked ~ as it is extremely solid and heavy like it should be, it is totally solid without the typical clinking and clunking that long lenses sometime demonstrate, and it produces images that of extreme quality that are off the charts !

 

[MrFotoFool]

I bought the non-IS about a year ago, after the Sigma (100-300 f4) that I was using lost autofocus and repair parts were unavailable. Of course I would have gotten the IS2 if I could afford it, but I could not and the non-IS was a thousand bucks less. Very happy with the lens, no complaints, and the high ISO on the 5D3 is so good that I can just bump up ISO in place of using IS. (I also use a tripod often, which of course negates the need for IS).

I find it tack sharp and it is interesting to see people here say it is actually sharper than the IS version 1. Makes me glad I got the non-IS new instead of getting an IS1 used. But of course if money is not an issue than by all means you should get the IS2. For me the main advantage of the IS2 would not be the IS, but rather the closer minimum focusing distance.