I'm looking to purchase a 400 2.8L IS within the next year or so, and I'm trying to decide between the current II version and the original. I'd appreciate comments from anyone who's used both. I'm wondering if it's true that image quality between the two generations is basically the same -- something mentioned in a lot of reviews of the new model that I found. Seems to me like weight and the IS system are really the only major differences.
Canon 400 f/2.8L IS mk1 v mk2
- Thread starter CDD28
- Start date
CDD28 said:
Don't underestimate those!
Also AF with the newest bodies, especially the 1DX, is faster and more accurate and the performance with both MkIII TC's is improved.
For my money I'd get the MkII.
Upvote
0
I agree get the version II ,I went with the version II but in the 300 and I am glad I did .The way it handles extenders III is amazing and I know I would have been wondered if I got a version I if I made a mistake but never second guessed my version II decision.
Upvote
0
If budget is not an issue, go for mrk II. I played with mrk 1 for 2days. The heavy weight took the fun away. I'm asian, 5'7" 165lbs. I have no problem shooting with mrk II handheld for couple shots. Mrk II is sharp at wide open, AF is fast, there is nothing to complaint.
MRK II works extremely well with 1.4x TC III(IQ still at 95% plus). With 2x TC III, IQ drops quite a bit. Here are some photos taken with 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III: http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Sports/Surfing#!/
MRK II works extremely well with 1.4x TC III(IQ still at 95% plus). With 2x TC III, IQ drops quite a bit. Here are some photos taken with 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III: http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Sports/Surfing#!/
Upvote
0
CDD28 said:
Don't underestimate these items... particularly the weight....
Optics of either are very good, but the weight of the Mk2 make it hand holdable and easier to maneuver on the monopod.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
