I was in need of a 70-200 Zoom. Could not afford the Mark II. Found at B&H a Mark 1? with IS and USM Rep said it was NON US model. Did I error? Could not afford the Mark II. Opinion?
Canon 70-200 USM IS L (not Mark II)
- Thread starter ronaldbyram
- Start date
No.
I have had one for over ten years, I have no plans to upgrade. The only reasonI would consider it was if I had to use TC's with it regularly.
I have had one for over ten years, I have no plans to upgrade. The only reasonI would consider it was if I had to use TC's with it regularly.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
The moment the MkII came out, the MkI became a terrible, unless lens, incapable of taking decent pictures. :
Seriously, though, is it a new lens or used? If new, I'm not sure about a Canon USA warranty, since the lens has been discontinued for >2 years. But...the warranty is the only theoretical difference between US and non-US (aka gray market) versions, and I say theoretical because Canon USA seems to honor the warranty for gray market items, provided you have a receipt from an authorized dealer (which B&H is, of course).
Seriously, though, is it a new lens or used? If new, I'm not sure about a Canon USA warranty, since the lens has been discontinued for >2 years. But...the warranty is the only theoretical difference between US and non-US (aka gray market) versions, and I say theoretical because Canon USA seems to honor the warranty for gray market items, provided you have a receipt from an authorized dealer (which B&H is, of course).
Upvote
0
The Mk II is markedly sharper than the Mk I. I had two copies of the Mk I to choose from and was never really happy with it's sharpness when shooting wide open. The only other lens I have right now that isn't very sharp is my 16-35 MkII (but the 17-40 was worse).
Many people were and continue to be happy with the Mk I, but I'd bet that those people
1) haven't tried a Mk II,
2) can't afford a Mk II,
3) aren't any kind of pixel peeper whatsoever
4) some combination of the above
Many people were and continue to be happy with the Mk I, but I'd bet that those people
1) haven't tried a Mk II,
2) can't afford a Mk II,
3) aren't any kind of pixel peeper whatsoever
4) some combination of the above
Upvote
0
KitsVancouver said:
I have tried the MkII,
I can afford several,
My smallest print is 24" X 16",
Personally I use sharpness as one of many lens characteristics of varying importance, out right sharpness is rarely a serious limit and few would argue the MkII has busier bokeh than the MkI. Lenses of this class become a matter of preference that goes vastly deeper than sharpness, the MkI focuses very fast, but with the latest bodies the MkII will focus faster, for sport and wildlife shooters that can be more important than slightly less smooth oof areas, for people who don't have the latest bodies the focus speed difference is not so apparent. For portrait and wedding orientated shooters busy and distracting backgrounds can break shots and take a lot of work in post to smooth effectively, besides, brides faces don't need the sharpness of the MkI, let alone more, I often have to dial in reverse clarity or do skin texture reduction to deal with the MkI sharpness levels.
I love new toys, I have tried the MkII several times but for me and my uses it is not an upgrade, just like the 1DX isn't an upgrade from my 1Ds MkIII, sure it does a lot of stuff better, but it doesn't do some stuff as well.
Upvote
0
Mark 1 is very sharp at f/4 and very useably sharp at 2.8. The mkii is very sharp wide open and every aperture. If you don't crop the images or pixel peep, the mk1 would do just fine. Pics look great to my eyes but if you want them to look like the mk2, Just add a bit of contrast and color in post and most people can not tell. I picked mine up used in perfect condition for $1100 last year so I couldn't get myself to justify upgrading to the mk2 for a lens I don't use that much since I have the 85. If you're going to use it for portraiture, you don't want it razor sharp anyways and the bokeh is great on both lenses.
and most people can not tell. I picked mine up used in perfect condition for $1100 last year so I couldn't get myself to justify upgrading to the mk2 for a lens I don't use that much since I have the 85. If you're going to use it for portraiture, you don't want it razor sharp anyways and the bokeh is great on both lenses.
Upvote
0
bmwzimmer said:Mark 1 is very sharp at f/4 and very useably sharp at 2.8. The mkii is very sharp wide open and every aperture. If you don't crop the images or pixel peep, the mk1 would do just fine. Pics look great to my eyes but if you want them to look like the mk2, Just add a bit of contrast and color in post
I really don't understand this "useably sharp" stuff, mine is razor sharp at f2.8, I have never, ever, thought, damn that would be a great image but for the fact that it isn't sharp enough. I have used mine at f2.8 on thousands of occasions and the only sharpness "issue" I have regularly is the need to lower it.
Tens of thousands of pros used the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI for 10 years without concern, many still do, the only thing it doesn't do anywhere near as well as the MkII is the IQ when used with the 2x TC, the results from the 1.4 TC are not different enough to be compelling.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
